Why is Java's Double.compare(double, double) implemented the way it is?

Question

I was looking at the implementation of compare(double, double) in the Java standard library (6). It reads:

public static int compare(double d1, double d2) {
    if (d1 < d2)
        return -1;       // Neither val is NaN, thisVal is smaller
    if (d1 > d2)
        return 1;        // Neither val is NaN, thisVal is larger

    long thisBits = Double.doubleToLongBits(d1);
    long anotherBits = Double.doubleToLongBits(d2);

    return (thisBits == anotherBits ?  0 : // Values are equal
            (thisBits < anotherBits ? -1 : // (-0.0, 0.0) or (!NaN, NaN)
             1));                          // (0.0, -0.0) or (NaN, !NaN)
}

What are the merits of this implementation?

---

edit: "Merits" was a (very) bad choice of words. I wanted to know how this works.

Answer 1

@Shoover's answer is correct (read it!), but there is a bit more to it than this.

As the javadoc for Double::equals states:

"This definition allows hash tables to operate properly."

Suppose that the Java designers had decided to implement equals(...) and compare(...) with the same semantics as == on the wrapped double instances. This would mean that equals() would always return false for a wrapped NaN. Now consider what would happen if you tried to use a wrapped NaN in a Map or Collection.

List<Double> l = new ArrayList<Double>();
l.add(Double.NaN);
if (l.contains(Double.NaN)) {
    // this wont be executed.
}

Map<Object,String> m = new HashMap<Object,String>();
m.put(Double.NaN, "Hi mum");
if (m.get(Double.NaN) != null) {
    // this wont be executed.
}

Doesn't make a lot of sense does it!

Other anomalies would exist because -0.0 and +0.0 have different bit patterns but are equal according to ==.

So the Java designers decided (rightly IMO) on the more complicated (but more intuitive) definition for these Double methods that we have today.