Mark Dickinson writes: > Declaring that 'nan == nan' should be True seems attractive in > theory,
No, it's intuitively attractive, but that's because humans like nice continuous behavior. In *theory*, it's true that some singularities are removable, and the NaN that occurs when evaluating at that point is actually definable in a broader context, but the point of NaN is that some singularities are *not* removable. This is somewhat Pythonic: "In the presence of ambiguity, refuse to guess." _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
