On 2010-03-29 01:17 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: > On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Robert Kern<robert.kern at gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2010-03-27 00:32 , David Cournapeau wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Raymond Hettinger >>> <raymond.hettinger at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mar 26, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Xavier Morel wrote: >>>> >>>> How about raising an exception instead of creating nans in the first >>>> place, >>>> except maybe within specific contexts (so that the IEEE-754 minded can >>>> get >>>> their nans working as they currently do)? >>>> >>>> -1 >>>> The numeric community uses NaNs as placeholders in vectorized >>>> calculations. >>> >>> But is this relevant to python itself ? In Numpy, we indeed do use and >>> support NaN, but we have much more control on what happens compared to >>> python float objects. We can control whether invalid operations raises >>> an exception or not, we had isnan/isfinite for a long time, and the >>> fact that nan != nan has never been a real problem AFAIK. >> >> Nonetheless, the closer our float arrays are to Python's float type, the >> happier I will be. > > Me too, but I don't see how to reconcile this with the intent of > simplifying nan handling because they are not intuitive, which seems > to be the goal of this discussion. "Do nothing" is still on the table, I think. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4