subject:"\[julia\-users\] Why don't NaNs raise an error\?"

Re: [julia-users] Why don't NaNs raise an error?

2016-04-27 Thread Tamas Papp

Also, checking for NaNs at certain critical points (instead of everywhere) is rather cheap. Then one can throw a DomainError() or similar. On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > If you petition Intel to improve support for signaling NaNs, I will gladly > sign that petition. Maybe

Re: [julia-users] Why don't NaNs raise an error?

2016-04-27 Thread Stefan Karpinski

If you petition Intel to improve support for signaling NaNs, I will gladly sign that petition. Maybe change.org ? But seriously, this is not a Julia thing. It's the result of a bunch of horse trading between hardware manufacturers and spec designers in the late 70s. You

Re: [julia-users] Why don't NaNs raise an error?

2016-04-26 Thread Tom Breloff

A NaN doesn't necessarily signify an error... Mathematically it can represent the empty set when there is no solution to an equation. On Tuesday, April 26, 2016, Anonymous wrote: > Why are NaNs allowed to be created without raising an error, and then > allowed to propagate

[julia-users] Why don't NaNs raise an error?

2016-04-26 Thread Anonymous

Why are NaNs allowed to be created without raising an error, and then allowed to propagate around your program corrupting basically all future computation.