Bug #7676


Comparison of Float::NAN in array behaves unexpectedly

Added by simonrussell (Simon Russell) over 9 years ago. Updated 8 months ago.

Target version:
ruby -v:
ruby 1.9.3p362 (2012-12-25 revision 38607) [x86_64-linux]


It seems that two arrays containing Float::NAN will be considered equal ([Float::NAN] == [Float::NAN]), despite the fact that Float::NAN != Float::NAN.

Tested and reproduced in 1.8.7p371, 1.9.3p362, 2.0.0preview2. (This bug can be reproduced in Ruby 1.8 as well.) Results below.

1.8.7 p371

1.8.7 :001 > nan = 0.0/0.0
=> NaN
1.8.7 :002 > nan == nan
=> false
1.8.7 :003 > [nan] == [nan]
=> true

1.9.3 p362

1.9.3p362 :001 > Float::NAN == Float::NAN
=> false
1.9.3p362 :002 > [Float::NAN] == [Float::NAN]
=> true

2.0.0 preview2

2.0.0dev :001 > Float::NAN == Float::NAN
=> false
2.0.0dev :002 > [Float::NAN] == [Float::NAN]
=> true


bug-7676.patch (1.67 KB) bug-7676.patch charliesome (Charlie Somerville), 01/09/2013 11:00 PM

Related issues 1 (0 open1 closed)

Is duplicate of Ruby master - Bug #1720: [NaN] == [NaN] が true になるClosedmrkn (Kenta Murata)Actions

Updated by charliesome (Charlie Somerville) over 9 years ago

Attached a patch fixing this issue - the pointer equality checks in recursive_equal and rb_equal should not be performed as this breaks in the case where a != a.

I'm not committing this straight away because it causes three test failures due to brittle mocks.

Updated by ngoto (Naohisa Goto) over 9 years ago

  • Status changed from Open to Rejected

duplicate of Bug #1720

See documentation in numeric.c added in r37546

Updated by simonrussell (Simon Russell) over 9 years ago

This isn't just Float::NAN, actually; as Charlie's patch shows, it's actually any object that always returns false from ==

1.9.3p125 :001 > class X
1.9.3p125 :002?>   def ==(other)
1.9.3p125 :003?>     false
1.9.3p125 :004?>   end
1.9.3p125 :005?> end
 => nil 
1.9.3p125 :006 > x =
 => #<X:0x00000000ba1648> 
1.9.3p125 :007 > x == x
 => false 
1.9.3p125 :008 > [x] == [x]
 => true 

Is this desirable behaviour?

Updated by simonrussell (Simon Russell) over 9 years ago

At the very least, the documentation for Array#== should be updated to state that it first does an object identity comparison, then calls == only if the objects aren't the same instance.

Updated by hasari (Hiro Asari) over 9 years ago

I, too, found documentation still lacking. I read #1720, and I understand the rationale for the Float::NAN case.

However, the issue still remains as Simon pointed out above. Please reopen the issue, or update the documentation to reflect the behavior more closely.

Updated by ngoto (Naohisa Goto) over 9 years ago

  • Category set to doc
  • Status changed from Rejected to Open

Updated by mrkn (Kenta Murata) over 9 years ago

  • Assignee set to matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
  • Target version set to 2.6

I think this is the specification issue, so we need to confirm the mat'z thought.
Matz, how do you think about it?

Updated by charliesome (Charlie Somerville) over 9 years ago

I understand that matz wants nan == nan to be undefined, but I think this should remain consistent within a platform, even though it is undefined between platforms.

Updated by steveklabnik (Steve Klabnik) almost 9 years ago

I would be happy to write a documentation patch for this if Matz can confirm which behavior is correct.

Updated by dwfait (Dwain Faithfull) over 6 years ago

It appears calling eql? on array does not behave in this way:

[Float::NAN].eql? [Float::NAN]
=> false

Should we aim for consistency between these methods? Does it make sense for one to have an identity check and for the other not to?

I believe it doesn't really make sense for == to have an identity check, as the example in #3 is not how I'd expect Ruby to behave.

Actions #11

Updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) 8 months ago

  • Status changed from Open to Closed

Also available in: Atom PDF