Re: master d0c77a1: Remove some assumptions about timestamp format

[Paul Eggert]

Michael Albinus wrote:
> Shouldn't this be `time-equal-p', as we have already `time-less-p'?

Thanks, as a Scheme refugee I never can remember which predicates should end in 
"-p" vs "p" vs nothing. I installed the attached.

> Tramp (and other functions) must check, whether a given time value
> is the "don't know" value. Therefore,
>
> (time-equal time-value 0.0e+NaN)
>
> must return t, if time-value is a NaN. And what if either value is a
> float infinity?

It appears that NaN isn't what Tramp wants. As a time value, NaN should work 
like floating-point NaN does; it should never compare numerically equal to 
anything, not even to itself (anything else would lead to even more confusion 
than what we already have :-). I hope that my other suggestion for Tramp 
suffices, so that we don't need to worry about what happens with NaNs in 
comparisons.

0001-Rename-time-equal-to-time-equal-p.patch
Description: Text Data