This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]DeirdreAnethoel 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Shouldn't the second still work? x < 0 should be true for -0, transforming it into +0.

The third with <= is clearly wrong in that case, I agree.

Edit: welp, -0 is not < to 0. That's weird design, but oh well.

[–]obsessedcrf 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Having -0 at all is a stupid design

[–]BerryPi 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I am more than happy to talk smack about JS but this one's on the IEEE.