On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Anders J. Munch <2...@jmunch.dk> wrote: > Joel Goldstick wrote: >> >> I've been following along here, and it seems you haven't received the >> answer you want or need. > > > So far I received exactly the answer I was expecting. 0 examples of > NaN!=NaN being beneficial. > I wasn't asking for help, I was making a point. Whether that will lead to > improvement of Python, well, I'm not too optimistic, but I feel the point > was worth making regardless.
If the reason there were 0 examples is because the group that you posed the question to is lacking the kind of experience needed to be able to provide them (speaking for myself, I wouldn't know because I don't ever do anything with NaN beyond checking for it as an error condition), then the point hasn't really been made, has it? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
