This RFC adds two argumentless methods to f32/f64, next_up and next_down. These functions are specified in the IEEE 754 standard, and provide the capability to enumerate floating point values in order.


Currently it is not possible to answer the question ‘which floating point value comes after x’ in Rust without intimate knowledge of the IEEE 754 standard. Answering this question has multiple uses:

  • Simply exploratory or educational purposes. Being able to enumerate values is critical for understanding how floating point numbers work, and how they have varying precision at different sizes. E.g. one might wonder what sort of precision f32 has at numbers around 10,000. With this feature one could simply print 10_000f32.next_up() - 10_000f32 to find out it is 0.0009765625.

  • Testing. If you wish to ensure a property holds for all values in a certain range, you need to be able to enumerate them. One might also want to check if and how your function fails just outside its supported range.

  • Exclusive ranges. If you want to ensure a variable lies within an exclusive range, these functions can help. E.g. to ensure that x lies within [0, 1) one can write x.clamp(0.0, 1.0.next_down()).

Guide-level explanation

Because floating point numbers have finite precision sometimes you might want to know which floating point number is right below or above a number you already have. For this you can use the methods next_down or next_up respectively. Using them repeatedly allows you to iterate over all the values within a range.

The method x.next_up() defined on both f32 and f64 returns the smallest number greater than x. Similarly, x.next_down() returns the greatest number less than x.

If you wanted to test a function for all f32 floating point values between 1 and 2, you could for example write:

let mut x = 1.0;
while x <= 2.0 {
    x = x.next_up();

On another occasion might be interested in how much f32 and f64 differ in their precision for numbers around one million. This is easy to figure out:

dbg!(1_000_000f32.next_up() - 1_000_000.0);
dbg!(1_000_000f64.next_up() - 1_000_000.0);

The answer is:

1_000_000f32.next_up() - 1_000_000.0 = 0.0625
1_000_000f64.next_up() - 1_000_000.0 = 0.00000000011641532182693481

If you want to ensure that a value s lies within -1 to 1, excluding the endpoints, this is easy to do:

s.clamp((-1.0).next_up(), 1.0.next_down())

Reference-level explanation

The functions nextUp and nextDown are defined precisely (and identically) in the standards IEEE 754-2008 and IEEE 754-2019. This RFC proposes the methods f32::next_up, f32::next_down, f64::next_up, and f64::next_down with the behavior exactly as specified in those standards.

To be precise, let tiny be the smallest representable positive value and max be the largest representable finite positive value of the floating point type. Then if x is an arbitrary value x.next_up() is specified as:

  • x if x.is_nan(),
  • -max if x is negative infinity,
  • -0.0 if x is -tiny,
  • tiny if x is 0.0 or -0.0,
  • positive infinity if x is max or positive infinity, and
  • the unambiguous and unique minimal finite value y such that x < y in all other cases.

x.next_down() is specified as -(-x).next_up().

A reference implementation for f32 follows, using exclusively integer arithmetic. The implementation for f64 is entirely analogous, with the exception that the constants 0x7fff_ffff and 0x8000_0001 are replaced by respectively 0x7fff_ffff_ffff_ffff and 0x8000_0000_0000_0001. Using exclusively integer arithmetic aids stabilization as a const fn, reduces transfers between floating point and integer registers or execution units (which incur penalties on some processors), and avoids issues with denormal values potentially flushing to zero during floating point arithmetic operations on some platforms.

/// Returns the least number greater than `self`.
/// Let `TINY` be the smallest representable positive `f32`. Then,
///  - if `self.is_nan()`, this returns `self`;
///  - if `self` is `NEG_INFINITY`, this returns `-MAX`;
///  - if `self` is `-TINY`, this returns -0.0;
///  - if `self` is -0.0 or +0.0, this returns `TINY`;
///  - if `self` is `MAX` or `INFINITY`, this returns `INFINITY`;
///  - otherwise the unique least value greater than `self` is returned.
/// The identity `x.next_up() == -(-x).next_down()` holds for all `x`. When `x`
/// is finite `x == x.next_up().next_down()` also holds.
pub const fn next_up(self) -> Self {
    const TINY_BITS: u32 = 0x1; // Smallest positive f32.
    const CLEAR_SIGN_MASK: u32 = 0x7fff_ffff;

    let bits = self.to_bits();
    if self.is_nan() || bits == Self::INFINITY.to_bits() {
        return self;
    let abs = bits & CLEAR_SIGN_MASK;
    let next_bits = if abs == 0 {
    } else if bits == abs {
        bits + 1
    } else {
        bits - 1

/// Returns the greatest number less than `self`.
/// Let `TINY` be the smallest representable positive `f32`. Then,
///  - if `self.is_nan()`, this returns `self`;
///  - if `self` is `INFINITY`, this returns `MAX`;
///  - if `self` is `TINY`, this returns 0.0;
///  - if `self` is -0.0 or +0.0, this returns `-TINY`;
///  - if `self` is `-MAX` or `NEG_INFINITY`, this returns `NEG_INFINITY`;
///  - otherwise the unique greatest value less than `self` is returned.
/// The identity `x.next_down() == -(-x).next_up()` holds for all `x`. When `x`
/// is finite `x == x.next_down().next_up()` also holds.
pub const fn next_down(self) -> Self {
    const NEG_TINY_BITS: u32 = 0x8000_0001; // Smallest (in magnitude) negative f32.
    const CLEAR_SIGN_MASK: u32 = 0x7fff_ffff;

    let bits = self.to_bits();
    if self.is_nan() || bits == Self::NEG_INFINITY.to_bits() {
        return self;
    let abs = bits & CLEAR_SIGN_MASK;
    let next_bits = if abs == 0 {
    } else if bits == abs {
        bits - 1
    } else {
        bits + 1


Two more functions get added to f32 and f64, which may be considered already cluttered by some.

Additionally, there is a minor pitfall regarding signed zero. Repeatedly calling next_up on a negative number will iterate over all values above it, with the exception of +0.0, only -0.0 will be visited. Similarly starting at positive number and iterating downwards will only visit +0.0, not -0.0.

However, if we were to define (-0.0).next_up() == 0.0 we would lose compliance with the IEEE 754 standard, and lose the property that x.next_up() > x for all finite x. It would also lead to the pitfall that (0.0).next_down() would not be the smallest negative number, but -0.0 instead.

Finally, there is a minor risk of confusion regarding precedence with unary minus. A user might inadvertently write -1.0.next_up() instead of (-1.0).next_up(), giving a value on the wrong side of -1. However, this potential confusion holds for most methods on f32/f64, and can be avoided by the cautious by writing f32::next_up(-1.0).

Rationale and alternatives

To implement the features described in the motivation the user essentially needs the next_up/next_down methods, or the alternative mentioned just below. If these are not available the user must either install a third party library for what is essentially one elementary function, or implement it themselves using to_bits and from_bits. This has several issues or pitfalls:

  1. The user might not even be aware that a third party library exists, searching the standard library in vain. If they find a third party library they might not be able to judge if it is of sufficient quality and with the exact semantics they expect.

  2. Even if the user is aware of IEEE 754 representation and chooses to implement it themselves, they might not get the edge cases correct. It is also a wasted duplicate effort.

  3. The user might misunderstand the meaning of f32::EPSILON, thinking that adding this to a number results in the next floating point number. Alternatively they might misunderstand f32::MIN_POSITIVE to be the smallest positive f32, or believe that x + f32::MIN_POSITIVE is a correct implementation of x.next_up().

  4. The user might give up entirely and simply choose an arbitrary offset, e.g. instead of x.clamp(0, 1.0.next_down()) they end up writing x.clamp(0, 1.0 - 1e-9).

The main alternative to these two functions is nextafter(x, y) (sometimes called nexttoward). This function was specified in IEEE 754-1985 to “return the next representable neighbor of x in the direction toward y”. If x == y then x is supposed to be returned. Besides error signaling and NaNs, that is the complete specification.

We did not choose this function for three reasons:

  • The IEEE specification is lacking, and deprecated. Unfortunately IEEE 754-1985 does not specify how to handle signed zeros at all, and some implementations (such as the one in the ISO C standard) deviate from the IEEE 754 standard by defining nextafter(x, y) as y when x == y. Specifications IEEE 754-2008 and IEEE 754-2019 do not mention nextafter at all.

  • From an informal study by searching for code using nextafter or nexttoward across a variety of languages we found that essentially every use case in the wild consisted of nextafter(x, c) where c is a constant effectively equal to negative or positive infinity. That is, the users would have been better suited by x.next_up() or x.next_down().

    Worse still, we also saw a lot of scenarios where c was somewhat arbitrarily chosen to be bigger/smaller than x, which might cause bugs when x is carelessly changed without updating c.

  • The function next_after has been deprecated by the libs team in the past (see Prior art).

The advantage of a potential x.next_toward(y) method would be that only a single method would need to be added to f32/f64, however we argue that this simply shifts the burden from documentation bloat to code bloat. Other advantages are that it might considered more readable by some, and that it is more familiar to those used to nextafter in other languages.

Finally, if we were to take inspiration from Julia and Ruby these two functions could be called next_float and prev_float, which are arguably more readable, albeit slightly more ambiguous as to which direction ‘next’ is.

Prior art

First we must mention that Rust used to have the next_after function, which got deprecated in We quote @alexcrichton:

We were somewhat ambivalent if I remember correctly on whether to stabilize or deprecate these functions. The functionality is likely needed by someone, but the names are unfortunately sub-par wrt the rest of the module. […] We realize that the FCP for this issue was pretty short, however, so please comment with any objections you might have! We’re very willing to backport an un-deprecate for the few APIs we have this cycle.

One might consider this a formal un-deprecation request, albeit with a different name and slightly different API.

Within the Rust ecosystem the crate float_next_after solely provides the x.next_after(y) method, and has 30,000 all-time downloads at the moment of writing. The crate ieee754 provides the next and prev methods among a few others and sits at 244,000 all-time downloads.

As for other languages supporting this feature, the list of prior art is extensive:

  • C has nextafter and nexttoward, essentially identical:

  • C++ follows in C’s footsteps:

  • Python has nextafter:

  • Java has nextUp, nextDown and nextAfter:

  • Swift has nextUp and nextDown:

  • Go has Nextafter:

  • Julia has nextfloat and prevfloat:

  • Ruby has next_float and prev_float:

Unresolved questions

  • Which is the better pair of names, next_up and next_down or next_float and prev_float?

Future possibilities

In the future Rust might consider having an iterator for f32 / f64 ranges that uses next_up or next_down internally.

The method ulp might also be considered, being a more precise implementation of what is approximated as x.next_up() - x in this document. Its implementation would directly compute the correct ULP by inspecting the exponent field of the IEEE 754 number.