Ben Finney wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> writes: > >> Robert Kern wrote: >>> On 4/28/11 8:44 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>>> The real question should be, why does Python treat all NANs as >>>> signalling NANs instead of quiet NANs? I don't believe this helps >>>> anyone. >>> Actually, Python treats all NaNs as quiet NaNs and never signalling NaNs. >> Sorry, did I get that backwards? I thought it was signalling NANs that >> cause a signal (in Python terms, an exception)? >> >> If I do x = 0.0/0 I get an exception instead of a NAN. Hence a >> signalling NAN. > > Robert has interpreted your “treats all NaNs as signalling NaNs” to mean > “treats all objects that Python calls a NaN as signalling NaNs”, and is > pointing out that no, the objects that Python calls “NaN” are all quiet > NaNs. I'm sorry for my lack of clarity. I'm referring to functions which potentially produce NANs, not the exceptions themselves. A calculation which might have produced a (quiet) NAN as the result instead raises an exception (which I'm treating as equivalent to a signal). -- Steven
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