It's funny I think the opposite: I kind of like the idea of an iNaN, but I've never been bothered by the asymmetry of INT_MIN and INT_MAX. I also don't think ov

It's funny I think the opposite: I kind of like the idea of an iNaN, but I've never been bothered by the asymmetry of INT_MIN and INT_MAX. I also don't think overflow should necessarily cause an iNaN right away. "INT_MAX + 10 - 20" is legit, even though it overflows twice. > In any case, processor vendors aren't about to change the way they do integer math so this discussion, while quite interesting, is completely academic. I thought so too initially, but really every processor already has a status register that shows you when overflow happened (otherwise big integer algorithms would be hard) which is all you really need for this proposal. But it does require a bunch of tests around and integer arithmetic which makes it unlikely to be a good candidate for a C language addition (a language whose main impetus is speed).