Welcome to the Lounge

Sander Rossel wrote:

NaN will behave differently, feels very random.

namespace CatState
{
    public static class CatStateExtensions
    {    
        public static double CatDead(this double[] args)
        {
            if (args.Contains(double.NaN))
            {
                Random rnd = new Random((int) DateTime.Now.Ticks);

                return (rnd.Next(0,2) == 0)
                    ? double.PositiveInfinity
                    : double.NegativeInfinity;
            }

            return args.Min();
        }

        public static double CatAlive(this double[] args)
        {
            if (args.Contains(double.NaN))
            {
                Random rnd = new Random((int) DateTime.Now.Ticks);

                return (rnd.Next(0,2) == 1)
                    ? double.PositiveInfinity
                    : double.NegativeInfinity;
            }

            return args.Max();
        }
    }
}

BillWoodruff wrote:

Random rnd = new Random((int) DateTime.Now.Ticks);

BillWoodruff wrote:

I wrote that code while I was half-dead, although that's a very poor excuse

Jochen Arndt wrote:

The implementation of Min and Max is probably not. But a Min function is usually implemented as
x < y ? x : y
instead of
!(x >= y) ? x : y

// Normally NaN < anything is false, as is anything < NaN
// However, this leads to some irksome outcomes in Min and Max.
// If we use those semantics then Min(NaN, 5.0) is NaN, but
// Min(5.0, NaN) is 5.0!  To fix this, we impose a total
// ordering where NaN is smaller than every value, including
// negative infinity.

den2k88 wrote:

What happened to the simple rule of checking for unexpected/invalid values before using them?

BillWoodruff wrote:

I am also in favor of disabling, or hiding, UI controls that are irrelevant to the current context, or which would create errors if clicked, or, which should only be used after specific action(s) by the user.