I wrote: > When the current row's value is +infinity, actual computation of > base - offset would yield NaN, making it a bit unclear whether > we should consider -infinity to be in-range. It seems to me that > we should, as that gives more natural-looking results in the test > cases, so that's how the patch does it.
Actually, after staring at those results awhile longer, I decided they were wrong. The results shown here seem actually sane --- for instance, -Infinity shouldn't "infinitely precede" itself, I think. (Maybe if you got solipsistic enough you could argue that that is valid, but it seems pretty bogus.)
Hmm, that code looks a bit fishy to me, but I really need to think about it some more. I'll take another look tomorrow, and maybe it'll become clearer.
