On 7/17/07, Timothy Hochberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The time is one issue. Another is that ignoring NaNs is only correct if you > are treating NaNs as missing values. If instead you are treating them as non > numbers, the results of some bogus computation, then raising an error is a > more appropriate response. If one was going to take the time to check for > NaNs, one strategy that I would probably support would be to ignore the > NaNs, but set the invalid flag. If the error state for invalid was set to > ignore, then this would work as the missing value camp likes, otherwise it > would raise an error or signal a warning.
That sounds great. Would a change like that have to wait until 1.1? _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
