I support PEP 326

[David M. Cooke]

At some point, Erik Max Francis <max at alcyone.com> wrote:
> Gary Robinson wrote:
>> If there anywhere else I should be expressing my opinion on this, let
>> me
>> know.
>
> Seems quite reasonable to me.  The only issue I'd take with it is the
> choice of Min and Max for the names of the singletons; they're a little
> too close to the functions min and max, which obviously they're both
> likely to be used with.  I would suggest something a little more verbose
> such as Minimum and Maximum, or if you want to get silly, Infimum and
> Supremum.

Or, expressing the idea that they're the ends of a number line:

PosInf, NegInf
PosInfinity, NegInfinity
PositiveInfinity, NegativeInfinity

If IEEE floating point was done correctly everywhere, I'd say make
them the corresponding floating-point constants (Inf+ and Inf-).

Or,
FreakingHuge, FreakingHugeTheOtherWay

-- 
|>|\/|<
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
|David M. Cooke
|cookedm(at)physics(dot)mcmaster(dot)ca