On 18 January 2012 12:43, Jose Fonseca <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jfonseca@vmware.com">jfonseca@vmware.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Looks good to me. Thanks<br> <br> Should there be a case for -INF while we are at it?<br></blockquote><div><br>I think you can make arguments both for and against. On the one hand, C99 requires strtod to recognize "INF", "+INF", "-INF", "INFINITY", "+INFINITY", "-INFINITY", and capitalization variations of those, in addition to a bunch of representations of NaN, so for maximum portability you might argue we should make our s-expression parser handle all of those even on non-C99 systems. On the other hand, s-expression parsing is only used for builtin functions, and at the moment builtin functions only use "+INF", so any code we write to support other forms won't actually be exercised. Personally, I favor just doing "+INF" on the grounds that it is the smallest fix that meets our present needs, and that adding anything else would require extra testing effort to validate. Keeping the fix as small as possible seems especially prudent considering that this fix is a candidate for the 8.0 branch.<br> <br>Paul<br></div></div>