in reply to Re^2: Incrementing "Infinity" bug
in thread Incrementing "Infinity" bug

I came across Inf (and friends) some years ago, decided they all looked somewhat flakey, and haven't used them since. Your posting has (somewhat) piqued my interest again. Here's some interesting results from Scalar::Util's looks_like_number() function.

$ perl -E ' use Scalar::Util qw{looks_like_number}; my @infs = (inf, Inf, INF, infinity, Infinity, INFINITY, -inf, -Inf, -INF, -infinity, -Infinity, -INFINITY, Inftyddssssd, infighting, Infighting, -Inftyddssssd, -infighting, -Infighting); say "$_ : ", looks_like_number($_) for @infs; ' inf : 20 Inf : 20 INF : 20 infinity : 20 Infinity : 20 INFINITY : 20 -inf : 28 -inf : 28 -inf : 28 -inf : 28 -inf : 28 -inf : 28 Inftyddssssd : 0 infighting : 0 Infighting : 0 -Inftyddssssd : 0 -infighting : 0 -Infighting : 0

I also noted that the documentation for this function links to perlapi - looks_like_number, which may be of interest ot you.

-- Ken

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Incrementing "Infinity" bug
by LanX (Saint) on Mar 25, 2013 at 16:49 UTC
    I suppose these numbers reflect some flags?

    something like:

    2^3 for negative

    2^2 for special value

    2^4 for infinity

    couldn't find explanation in the docs.

    > decided they all looked somewhat flakey,

    agreed, but shouldn't we try to fix it.

    Don't you think the algorithm I used is a valid use case? (non-reachable integer)

    Cheers Rolf

    ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)