Floating point minimum values are positive?

[John Colvin]

On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 21:02:30 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling 
wrote:
> Always amusing to run into those little quirks of parts of the 
> language you've never worked with before ...
>
> I just realized that while e.g. int.min gives a negative value, 
> the floating point equivalent, e.g. double.min, gives a very 
> small positive value -- I guess the smallest possible positive 
> value.
>
> I guess this is intentional, so I thought I'd ask why -- it's a 
> little unintuitive after the integral type behaviour.
>
> Also, how can I get the truly least value of a floating point 
> number? I guess with e.g. -double.max ... ?

Pretty certain bearophile's been campaigning for the removal of 
these. Or am I confusing it with something else?