POS_INFTY and NEG_INFTY are not infinite

[mkoval]

The constants are currently defined as:

const double POS_INFTY = numeric_limits<double>::max();
const double NEG_INFTY = -POS_INFTY;

However, numeric_limits<>::max is defined to be:

Returns the maximum finite value representable by the numeric type T.

It would make more sense to use numeric_limits<double>::infinity(). I would be happy to make a pull request for this change. However, I want to check:

Is max() used instead of infinity() here intentionally? I.e. will something break if I make this change?

[yenan]

hi Michael,

max() was used because on platforms not following the IEEE 754
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/numeric_limits/is_iec559 standard,
infinity() is not meaningful.

in case you need to use infinity() to make things work, i've modified the
definition so that whenever infinity() is meaningful, POS_INFTY is
infinity().

• Nan

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Michael Koval notifications@github.com
wrote:

The constants are currently defined as:

const double POS_INFTY = numeric_limits::max();const double NEG_INFTY = -POS_INFTY;

However, numeric_limits<>::max is defined to be
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/numeric_limits/max:

Returns the maximum finite value representable by the numeric type T.

It would make more sense to use numeric_limits::infinity()
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/numeric_limits/infinity. I would
be happy to make a pull request for this change. However, I want to check:

Is max() used instead of infinity() here intentionally? I.e. will
something break if I make this change?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#5.