From: David Mertz <me...@gnosis.cx> Sent: 29 December 2019 15:58 To: Steve Barnes <gadgetst...@live.co.uk> Cc: Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info>; python-ideas <python-ideas@python.org> Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Re: Testing for NANs [was Re: Fix statistics.median()?]
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 10:51 AM Steve Barnes <gadgetst...@live.co.uk<mailto:gadgetst...@live.co.uk>> wrote: I do have to disagree here as it is entirely possible, in the world of hardware interfacing, that an external hardware device could possibly supply an sNaN as a something was seriously wrong flag, (as opposed to a I haven't got any data at the moment). Wouldn't the right time to handle an sNaN coming from hardware *always* be upon acquisition rather than sticking it in a collection to operate on later? Fail-fast fail-hard seems like basic good design, that much more so when it comes to hardware. [Steve Barnes] Ideally yes David the best time is on acquisition but the hardware interfacing is most often done in a background task with no UI, e.g. a thread so it is not always practical to do so. Also these things are usually time critical so kept as simple as possible. Get the packet, ensure it is all there and pass it on for later processing so I can quite see sNaNs making it through to a statistics function.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/44FQLKPYM4CMAXD7E6NY6VWH6MBA5BF6/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
