Ben Finney wrote:
Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> writes:
Robert Kern wrote:
On 4/28/11 8:44 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
The real question should be, why does Python treat all NANs as
signalling NANs instead of quiet NANs? I don't believe this helps
anyone.
Actually, Python treats all NaNs as quiet NaNs and never signalling NaNs.
Sorry, did I get that backwards? I thought it was signalling NANs that
cause a signal (in Python terms, an exception)?
If I do x = 0.0/0 I get an exception instead of a NAN. Hence a
signalling NAN.
Robert has interpreted your “treats all NaNs as signalling NaNs” to mean
“treats all objects that Python calls a NaN as signalling NaNs”, and is
pointing out that no, the objects that Python calls “NaN” are all quiet
NaNs.
I'm sorry for my lack of clarity. I'm referring to functions which
potentially produce NANs, not the exceptions themselves. A calculation
which might have produced a (quiet) NAN as the result instead raises an
exception (which I'm treating as equivalent to a signal).
--
Steven
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
