On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Charles R Harris < charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com>wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 17:13, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I've been cleaning up the ufunc loops and the sign function currently doesn't have a defined behavior for nans. This makes the results
depend on
the order/type of comparisons in the code, which looks fragile to me. So what should it return? I vote for nan but am open for suggestions.
And while we're at it, lets decide how to treat max/min when nans are involved. Or should we just say the behavior is undefined.
When feasible, I would like float(s)->float functions to return NaN when given a NaN as an argument. At least as the main versions of the function. Specific NaN-ignoring functions can also be introduced, but as separate functions. I don't know what exactly to do about float->int functions (e.g. argmin). I also don't know how these should interact with the current seterr() state.
So the proposition is, sign, max, min return nan when any of the arguments is nan.
+1
I also propose that all logical operators involving nan return false, i.e., ==, !=, <, <=, >, >=, and, or, xor, not.
Currently this is so except for !=. On my machine nan != nan is true. Looks like it is being computed in C as !(nan == nan). Hmm, anyone know of a C standard on this? Chuck