On 2006-06-14, Nick Maclaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The numerical robustness of Python is very poor - this is not its fault,
> but that of IEEE 754 and (even more) C99. In particular, erroneous
> numerical operations often create apparently valid numbers, and the
> NaN state can be lost without an exception being raised. For example,
> try int(float("nan")).
>
> Don't even ASK about complex, unless you know FAR more about numerical
> programming than 99.99% of programmers :-(
>
> Now, I should like to improve this, but there are two problems. The
> first is political, and is whether it would be acceptable in Python to
> restore the semantics that were standard up until about 1980 in the
> numerical programming area. I.e. one where anything that is numerically
> undefined or at a singularity which can deliver more than one value is
> an error state (e.g. raises an an exception or returns a NaN).
That's fine as long as the behavior is selectable. I almost
always want a quiet NaN.
While you're at it, the pickle modules need to be fixed so they
support NaN and Inf. ;)
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Yow!
at
visi.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
