On 10/04/2008, Travis E. Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruce Southey wrote: > > Hi, > > Since we are discussing namespace and standardization, I am curious in > > why there are multiple definitions for defining infinity in numpy when > > perhaps there should be two (one for positive infinity and one for > > negative infinity). I really do understand that other people have use of > > these definitions and that it is easier to leave them in than take them > > out. Also, it is minor reduction in namespace because I do know that > > much of the namespace is either defining variables (like different > > floats and complex numbers) or mathematical functions (like logs and > > trig functions). > > > > Currently we have: > > numpy.Inf > > numpy.Infinity > > numpy.inf > > numpy.infty > > numpy.NINF > > numpy.PINF > > > > Most of these are defined in numeric.py: 'Inf = inf = infty = Infinity = > > PINF' > > In the f2py/tests subdirectories, the files return_real.py and > > return_complex.py uses both 'inf','Infinity'. > > The only occurrence of NINF and PINF are in core/src/umathmodule.c but I > > don't see any other usage. > > There does not seem to be any use of 'infty'. > > > > I think this is a product of bringing together a few definitions into > one and not forcing a standard. > > numpy.inf > numpy.nan > > should be used except for backward compatibility.
The others have some use if you want to be able to use the results of repr() as literals - as I understand it the output representation of a NaN depends on the C library, and users seeing, say, "NaN" might well expect to be able to type NaN (after from numpy import NaN) and get a NaN. Anne _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
