Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 21:02:40 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <864k7633pr.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <20210930012112$48d9@zira.vinc17.org> <87pmsqizrh.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20210930105413$d6e8@zira.vinc17.org> <87lf3ehy4v.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20211001083755$efb3@zira.vinc17.org> <86sfxbpm9d.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20211009195154$ec8a@zira.vinc17.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6f266d79a765f44bdb30d571740e8aec"; logging-data="27914"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+v3UjJyFbSmsqttw0C3zX1caD8a+GkBgU="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RYWGg/JTWgxGDx4KAeGIhsuUpWM= sha1:3Ao3dT7kP0l76vfgTul+gtsOGmA=
Xref: csiph.com comp.std.c:6399

Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> writes:

> In article <86sfxbpm9d.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
>   Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>
>> To me it seems better for INFINITY to be defined as it is rather
>> than being conditionally defined.  If what is needed is really an
>> infinite value, just write INFINITY and the code either works or
>> compiling it gives a diagnostic.
>
> diagnostic and undefined behavior.  [...]

Not everyone agrees with this conclusion.