On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > On 18 Feb 2014 07:07, "Robert Kern" <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >> > Perhaps integer power should raise an error on negative powers? That way >> > people will at least be directed to use arr ** -1.0 instead of silently >> > getting nonsense from arr ** -1. >> >> Controllable by np.seterr(invalid=...)? I could get behind that. > > I'm not sure the np.seterr part would work or be a good idea, given that we > have no way to return or propagate NaN... I vote for just an unconditional > error.
<shrug> We issue configurable warning/error/ignore behavior for integer 0/0 through this mechanism too without any NaNs. However, that's `divide` and not `invalid`. Your point is taken that `invalid` usually implies that a `NaN` is generated, though I don't think this is ever stated anywhere. I just suggested `invalid` as that is usually what we use for function domain violations. -- Robert Kern _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
