Chris Angelico wrote:
This is off-topic for this thread, but still...
The trouble is that your "arguably just as wrong" is an
indistinguishable case. If you don't want two different calculations'
NaNs to *ever* compare equal, the only solution is to have all NaNs
compare unequal
For two NaNs computed differently to compare equal is no worse than 2+2
comparing equal to 1+3. You're comparing values, not their history.
You've prompted me to get a rant on the subject off my chest, I just posted an
article on NaN comparisons to python-list.
regards, Anders
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
