Timothy Hochberg 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.
I'd almost be willing to make max() and min() always ignore quiet NaNs. The C99 standard requires this, for example, (c.f. section F.9.9.2 of the C99 standard). -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
