On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 2 Oct 2013 19:14, "Benjamin Root" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > And it is logically consistent, I think. a[nanargmax(a)] == nanmax(a) > (ignoring the silly detail that you can't do an equality on nans). > > Why do you call this a silly detail? It seems to me a fundamental flaw to > this approach. > > Just saying that it conceptually makes sense, even if the exact code I used wouldn't be perfectly correct. Because these are NaN functions, it means that the users are already aware of the need to handle nans appropriately. Just because you can't actually do equality between two NaNs in the same way as one can do with numbers does not invalidate the concept. Ben Root
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
