On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/27/11 12:44 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: >> >> On 4/27/2011 10:53 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >>> Maybe we should just call off the odd NaN comparison behavior? >> >> Eiffel seems to have survived, though I do not know if it used for >> numerical >> work. I wonder how much code would break and what the scipy folks would >> think. > > I suspect most of us would oppose changing it on general > backwards-compatibility grounds rather than actually *liking* the current > behavior. If the behavior changed with Python floats, we'd have to mull over > whether we try to match that behavior with our scalar types (one of which > subclasses from float) and our arrays. We would be either incompatible with > Python or C, and we'd probably end up choosing Python to diverge from. It > would make a mess, honestly. We already have to explain why equality is > funky for arrays (arr1 == arr2 is a rich comparison that gives an array, not > a bool, so we can't do containment tests for lists of arrays), so NaN is > pretty easy to explain afterward.
So does NumPy also follow Python's behavior about ignoring the NaN special-casing when doing array ops? -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ 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
