The numerical robustness of Python is very poor - this is not its fault,
but that of IEEE 754 and (even more) C99. In particular, erroneous
numerical operations often create apparently valid numbers, and the
NaN state can be lost without an exception being raised. For example,
try int(float("nan")).
Don't even ASK about complex, unless you know FAR more about numerical
programming than 99.99% of programmers :-(
Now, I should like to improve this, but there are two problems. The
first is political, and is whether it would be acceptable in Python to
restore the semantics that were standard up until about 1980 in the
numerical programming area. I.e. one where anything that is numerically
undefined or at a singularity which can deliver more than one value is
an error state (e.g. raises an an exception or returns a NaN). This
is heresy in the C99 and Java camps, and is none too acceptable in the
IEEE 754R one.
My question here is would such an attempt be opposed tooth and nail
in the Python context, the way it was in C99?
The second is technical. I can trivially provide options to select
between a restricted range of behaviours, but the question is how.
Adding a method to an built-in class doesn't look easy, from my
investigations of floatobject.c, and it is very doubtful that is the
best way, anyway - one of the great problems with "object orientation"
is how it handles issues that occur at class conversions. A run-time
option or reading an environment variable has considerable merit from
a sanity point of view, but calling a global function is also possible.
Any ideas?
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
