Comparison of Float::NAN in array behaves unexpectedly
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 :001 > nan = 0.0/0.0
1.8.7 :002 > nan == nan
1.8.7 :003 > [nan] == [nan]
1.9.3p362 :001 > Float::NAN == Float::NAN
1.9.3p362 :002 > [Float::NAN] == [Float::NAN]
2.0.0dev :001 > Float::NAN == Float::NAN
2.0.0dev :002 > [Float::NAN] == [Float::NAN]
Updated by charliesome (Charlie Somerville) almost 7 years ago
Attached a patch fixing this issue - the pointer equality checks in
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 simonrussell (Simon Russell) almost 7 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.new => #<X:0x00000000ba1648> 1.9.3p125 :007 > x == x => false 1.9.3p125 :008 > [x] == [x] => true
Is this desirable behaviour?
Updated by hasari (Hiro Asari) almost 7 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 dwfait (Dwain Faithfull) almost 4 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.