On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 10:04 PM Christopher Barker <python...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Since you brought that up -- I recall a lot of debate about whether NaN's
> should be considered missing values or "poisoning" in the statistics module
> -- there are arguments for both, and neither was clear or obvious. So using
> NaN to mean "not specified" in this context would not be obvious to
> everyone, and when we have the perfectly good None instead, why do it?
>
Well, yes... I wrote a lot of that debate :-)
I even sort of re-discovered quick select on my own... then eventually
figured out that a bunch of people had benchmarked a better implementation
to potentially use in statistics.median() a year before I tried. Python
sorted() is really fast! But it's still the WRONG way to do this, or at
least there should be a switch to allow nan-poisoning and/or nan-stripping.
Btw, definitely +1 on math.clamp(value, *, lower=None, upper=None) .
>>
>
> what about:
>
> math.clamp(value, *, lower=-math.inf, upper=math.inf) .
>
Oh sure. That's fine. But the implementation would still need to check
for None and convert it to the infinities. Ordinary users just simply ARE
going to try:
math.clamp(x, lower=None, upper=99)
And expect that to mean "I don't care about lower bound."
--
The dead increasingly dominate and strangle both the living and the
not-yet born. Vampiric capital and undead corporate persons abuse
the lives and control the thoughts of homo faber. Ideas, once born,
become abortifacients against new conceptions.
_______________________________________________
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/JMNU4L42AAGKFGF6CSUW3CWY574QUFIM/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
