Re: (0 <= i && i < N) is not "backwards"

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:49:28 -0700
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden
> 
> On 03/25/13 07:53, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > the problem with relying on 0 < foo is that most people won't even
> > consider the subtle difference between that and !(foo >= 0)
> 
> There must be dozens of places in the Emacs source code that
> use floating-point comparisons and rely on NaNs behaving the
> way that they do.

I'd be surprised if there were literally "dozens" of such places.