Is D floating point semantics too advanced?

[Walter Bright]

Hans-Eric Grönlund wrote:
> Point taken. Still feel awkward about having to accept tests like (x
> != x) with hidden (not obvious) semantics, special for floating point
> types. But I shall not hold D responsible for it anymore, this is a
> matter of the standard specification.
> 
> Thank you for enlightening me.

No prob, I don't really understand why this is the convention myself.