int nan

[bearophile]

Frits van Bommel:
> It's fine for Lisp because any Lisp I've ever seen auto-upgrades out-of-range 
> integers to (heap-allocated) bigints.

I think it can be fine even if you have just fixnums with that single value missing from signed integrals.


> I'd like to point out you don't need a new built-in type (or changes to a 
> existing one) to use those LLVM intrinsics with LDC. Just import ldc.intrinsics, 
> define a struct MyInt and overload operators on it using llvm_sadd_with_overflow 
> and friends.
> 
> That doesn't work for external libraries of course, but those should be free to 
> handle overflow situations and undefined operations however they want without 
> having to worry about int.nan...

Probably I have not expressed myself well in this part of my post, because here I was not taking about a new int type or about int nans.
I was talking about int overflows. I'll explain better in #ldc.

Bye,
bearophile