Re: [Python-ideas] Fwd: NAN handling in the statistics module

2019-01-10 Thread Jonathan Fine
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 5:07 PM David Mertz  wrote:

>>> You might shoot yourself in the foot, but at least you know its the same 
>>> foot you shot yourself in using the previous version *wink*

> I've lost attribution chain. I think this is Steven, but it doesn't really 
> matter.

I think it was Steve. So far as I know, he's the only person on this
list who winks at other participants.

-- 
Jonathan
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/


[Python-ideas] Fwd: NAN handling in the statistics module

2019-01-10 Thread David Mertz
>
> One possible argument for making PASS the default, even if that means
>> implementation-dependent behaviour with NANs, is that in the absense of a
>> clear preference for FAIL or RETURN, at least PASS is backwards compatible.
>>
>> You might shoot yourself in the foot, but at least you know its the same
>> foot you shot yourself in using the previous version *wink*
>>
>
I've lost attribution chain. I think this is Steven, but it doesn't really
matter.

This statement is untrue, or at least only accidentally true at most. The
behavior of sorted() against partially ordered collections is unspecified.
The author of Timsort says exactly this.

If stastics.median() keeps the same implementation—or keeps it with a PASS
argument—it may or may not produce the same result in a later Python
versions. Timsort is great, but even that has been tweaked sightly over
time.

I guess the statement is true if "same foot" means "meaningless answer" not
some specific value. But that hardly feels like a defense of the behavior.

>
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/