On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:41 PM, David Cournapeau
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anne Archibald wrote:
I, on the other hand, was making specifically that suggestion: users
should not use nans to indicate missing values. Users should use
masked arrays to indicate missing values.
I agree it
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 01:15, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be happy to implement nan sorts if someone can provide me with a
portable and easy way to detect nans for single, double, and long double
floats. And not have it fail if the architecture doesn't support nans. I
2008/9/19 Eric Firing [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pierre GM wrote:
It seems to me that there are pragmatic reasons
why people work with NaNs for missing values,
that perhaps shd not be dismissed so quickly.
But maybe I am overlooking a simple solution.
nansomething solutions tend to be considerably
Charles R Harris wrote:
I would be happy to implement nan sorts if someone can provide me with
a portable and easy way to detect nans for single, double, and long
double floats. And not have it fail if the architecture doesn't
support nans. I think getting all the needed nan detection and
Blubaugh, David A. wrote:
ImportError: DLL load with error code 193
Likely to be a build error: how did you build the .pyd file ?
cheers,
David
___
Numpy-discussion mailing list
Numpy-discussion@scipy.org
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Jake Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Because you're always working with probabilities, there is almost always no
ambiguity...whenever NaN is encounter, 0 is what is desired.
...of course, division presents a good counterexample.
Bad idea?
So probably.
