C++ gotcha: numeric_limits::min() doesn't do what you'd think

I use C++ every day, but boy it is annoying sometimes.  It has little symantec flaws that catch you.  You can use numeric_limits to avoid hardcoding a "big number".  Given that

numeric_limits<int>::max()  is    2147483647
numeric_limits<int>::min()  is   -2147483648
numeric_limits<double>::max()  is 1.79769e+308

What do you suppose numeric_limits<double>::min() would be?

I assumed it would be -1.79769e+308, but no.  It is 2.22507e-308, the smallest positive double value.  What the hell?  If you want to return that, give it a better name.

Sure, I realize that I can use -numeric_limits<double>::max(), but boy that is confusing and makes template code based on this impossible. Asking around the office, everyone seemed to know the value, and they all found out the hard way by having a bug in their code.

It ranks up there with using abs and fabs with doubles.