Re: [Gnash-commit] gnash ChangeLog server/as_value.cpp server/as_v...

[Sandro Santilli]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 01:24:04PM +0800, zou lunkai wrote:
> >+check(NaN != NaN); // TODO: this seems a bogus check, the check
> should actually return false
> 
> confirmed, should return false.
> 
> For swf>=5, The observed results here are:
> 
> trace(NaN == NaN);   //true
> trace(NaN >= NaN);   //true
> trace(NaN <= NaN);  //true
> trace(NaN > NaN);    //undefined
> trace(NaN < NaN);    //undefined
> trace(NaN != NaN);   //false
> 
> Yes, I can add these to the testsuite. But I guess we might have
> different "observed results" with different  PP.

We might use a PP_COMPATIBILITY define or just take the results
closest to the ECMA 262 and document the differences in player
in Gnash manual page.

I like the latter more.
NaN == NaN and NaN != NaN might need to both return false,
but ECMA 262 says that A != B should be equivalent to ! (A == B)
which would be contracdictory in this case.

--strk;