Comment by WalterBright
16 hours ago
NaNs are a very underappreciated feature of IEEE-754 floating point. In the D programming language, floats get default initialized to NaN, not to 0.0.
double y = 0.0; // initialized to 0.0
double x; // initialized to NaN
The discussion routinely comes up as "why not default initialize to 0.0?" The reason is a routine mistake in programming is forgetting to initialize a variable. With a floating point 0.0, one may never realize that the floating point calculation results are wrong. But with NaN, the result of a floating point computation will be NaN, which is unlikely to go unnoticed.
I don't know of any other programming language with this safety feature.
Also, the D `char` type is initialized to 0xFF, not 0, because Unicode says that 0xFF is an invalid character.
Just requiring explicit assignment before first use feels like the superior approach to automatic initialization, regardless of whether the automatic initialization is with 0 or with NaN.
That suggestion is often made.
The trouble with it is a bug I've seen often. People will get an error message about an "uninitialized variable". Then they go into "just get the compiler to shut up" mode, amd pick "0" as the initializer. Then, the program compiles and runs, and silently produces the wrong answer. Code reviews will simply pass over the "0" initializer, as it looks right.
With default NaN initialization, the programmer is more likely to stop and think about it, not just insert 0.
Another issue with it is:
For the purposes of code clarity I don't want to see a variable initialized to a value that is never used, just to shut the compiler up.
With the default initialization to nan, do you ever run into situations where people are searching for common sources for nan (nan literals, div by zero) and they can't find it? Or cases where only some branches but not others initialize the float?
4 replies →
How long did you think about this before making this declaration? How long did Walter Bright think about this before making his decision when designing his language? Not saying you're wrong, just something to think about perhaps.
C# requires explicit assignment. If an appeal to authority sways you (it shouldn't), you can substitute Anders Hejlsberg instead of this random OP. How long do you suppose Anders Hejlsberg thought about this?
But I contend it's more useful (and interesting) to think about the idea with your own mind instead of tallying up the perceived authority of its supporters and relying on trust. It was also somewhat rude to suggest that the OP had not given their idea much thought. This is a forum for discussion, isn't it?
1 reply →
Thank you. I've made many counter-intuitive decisions based on long experience. Sometimes I just have to say "trust me".
Like not allowing macros in D, or version algebra.
Yep. This is NaN as a billion dollar mistake all over again.
Unrecognized subtle errors in floating point calculations are worse problems.
1 reply →
Another crucial use of NaNs is if you have a sensor. If the sensor has failed, the sensed value should be transmitted as NaN, not 0, so the receiver knows the data is bad.
Doesn’t this completely depend on the sensor failure mode? Eg if a voltage sensor internally shorts to ground, the failure will read 0V, not NaN. Or are you using “failed sensor” to only mean “not reporting” here?
I think your initialization is smart in many use cases, but the sensor application probably isn’t one of them except for that single failure mode. It can still lead to masked failures and false assumptions (“the sensor is getting a value so it must be working”). That’s the same issue as what you’re supposedly fixing by that design choice. It still requires engineering knowledge to assess correctly.
My experience is that if you write an interface that (rarely) returns NaNs, someone will use it assuming it's never NaN no matter how good the docs are. Then their code does bad things and you have to patiently explain why they're wrong and yes, they are holding isnan() wrong (in C/C++).
When such users are expected, there exists only one solution.
Do not mask the invalid operation exception, which was actually the original recommendation of the IEEE standard, which was that the default behavior should be to mask all exceptions, except the invalid operation exception.
When the invalid operation exception is not masked, NaNs are never generated and any NaN present in the input data will generate an exception, which will abort the program, unless the exception is handled.
This behavior avoids the bugs caused by careless programmers. Unfortunately, the original suggestion was not adopted by most programming language implementers, so nowadays the typical default setting is to have all exceptions masked. When the programmers also omit to handle the special values, bugs may remain unnoticed.
Special values need not be handled everywhere, because infinities and NaNs will propagate through many operations, so they will remain in the final results. But wherever a value is not persistent, but it is used in some decision and it is discarded after that, special values like NaNs must be handled correctly.
NaN for a failed sensor is objectively better than any other value. But at some point you just cannot help some people.
That's a very thoughtful decision, I always enjoy your updates on D
> ... Unicode says that 0xFF is an invalid character.
Not so. You may be thinking of UTF-8 encoding. 0xff is DEL in Unicode.
DEL is unicode codepoint U+007F, which is the byte 0x7F in UTF-8, not 0xFF. Perhaps you were thinking of ÿ which is codepoint U+00FF, which encodes to the bytes 0xC3 0xBF in UTF-8.
The "char" type in D represents a UTF-8 code unit, the byte 0xFF is not a valid character code and is strictly forbidden.