On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Nils Wagner <nwagner@iam.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:29:45 -0500 "Travis E. Oliphant" <oliphant@enthought.com> wrote:
Pauli Virtanen wrote:
Hi all,
Re: Ticket 854.
I wrote tests for the branch cuts for all complex arc* functions in umathmodule. It turns out that all except arccosh were OK. The formula for arcsinh was written in a non-standard form with an unnecessary nc_neg, but this didn't affect the results. I also wrote tests for checking values of the functions at infs and nans.
Thanks for looking into these. These functions were contributed by Konrad Hinsen (IIRC) many years ago and I don't think they've really been reviewed since then.
I'm all for using C99 when it is available and improving these functions with help from cmathmodule. IIRC, the cmathmodule was contributed by Konrad originally also.
So +1 on C99 standardization.
-Travis
====================================================================== ERROR: test_umath.TestC99.test_catanh(<ufunc 'arctanh'>, (nan, nan), (nan, nan), '') ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/nose-0.10.3-py2.4.egg/nose/case.py", line 182, in runTest self.test(*self.arg) File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/numpy/core/tests/test_umath.py", line 405, in _check func(point) FloatingPointError: invalid value encountered in arctanh
<snip> What architecture and OS? Chuck