On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:38:13 -0500 Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/11 5:10 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Alexander Belopolsky <alexander.belopolsky@gmail.com> wrote:
I posted a patch implementing this proposal on the tracker:
Interesting indeed! I'd like to hear from the numpy folks about this.
I'm personally -1, though mostly on general conservative principles. I'm sure there is some piece of code that will break, but I don't know how significant it would be.
I'm not sure that it solves a significant problem. I've never actually heard of anyone running into an infinite cycle due to NaNs, though a bit of Googling does suggest that it happens sometimes.
Same as Robert. This does not seem very useful and may break existing code. It also opens the door for attacks against code which takes floats as input strings and parses them using the float() constructor. An attacker can pass "nan", which will be converted successfully and can later raise an exception at an arbitrary point. Applications will have to actively protect against this, which is an unnecessary nuisance. Regards Antoine.