Business
Jobs
  • About Us
  • Solutions
    • Job Postings
      Post your job and receive qualified candidates in 48h.
    • Candidate Assessments
      500+ technical and psychological tests, plus anti-fraud.
    • Headhunting
      Tailor-made executive search from start to finish.
    • Payroll + EOR
      Payroll dispersal and EOR across 15+ LATAM countries.
  • Pricing
  • Jobs

0

179
Views
Why do includes() and indexOf() work differently with searching NaN?

//indexOf()
console.log([1, 2, NaN].indexOf(NaN)); //-1

//includes()
console.log([1, 2, NaN].includes(NaN)); //true

I don't get why includes can find NaN in array, while indexOf can't.

I've read that it's happening because indexOf uses strict-equality-operator internally (NaN === NaN). But as for me, there's no deffirence between strict-equality-operator and abstract equality operator when we're talking about NaN. NaN can't be equal to itself anyway.

//strict equality operator
console.log(NaN === NaN); //false

//abstract equality operator
console.log(NaN == NaN); //still false

So why is there some difference between these 2 methods?

about 4 years ago · Juan Pablo Isaza
1 answers
Answer question

0

Basically, Array.prototype.indexOf uses a different equality algorithm than Array.prototype.includes.

Array.prototype.indexOf ends up using Number::equal. Which does:

  1. If x is NaN, return false.
  2. If y is NaN, return false.

While Array.prototype.includes ends up using Number::sameValueZero

Which does:

  1. If x is NaN and y is NaN, return true.

As to why does the spec allow a comparison of two different NaNs to be true, well that's up to the TC. I can only guess they made it this way as it's a convenient way to check if there's a NaN in the array.

about 4 years ago · Juan Pablo Isaza Report
Answer question
Find remote jobs

Discover the new way to find a job!

Top jobs
Top job categories
Business
Post vacancy Pricing Sales
Legal
Terms and conditions Privacy policy
© 2026 PeakU Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Andres GPT
Show me some job opportunities
There's an error!