Hi All,
I've added ufuncs fmin and fmax that behave as follows:
In [3]: a = array([NAN, 0, NAN, 1])
In [4]: b = array([0, NAN, NAN, 0])
In [5]: fmax(a,b)
Out[5]: array([ 0., 0., NaN, 1.])
In [6]: fmin(a,b)
Out[6]: array([ 0., 0., NaN, 0.])
In [7]: fmax.reduce(a)
Out[7]: 1.0
In
Hi Charles,
2008/10/2 Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In [3]: a = array([NAN, 0, NAN, 1])
In [4]: b = array([0, NAN, NAN, 0])
In [5]: fmax(a,b)
Out[5]: array([ 0., 0., NaN, 1.])
In [6]: fmin(a,b)
Out[6]: array([ 0., 0., NaN, 0.])
These are great, many thanks!
My only
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 02:37, Stéfan van der Walt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Charles,
2008/10/2 Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In [3]: a = array([NAN, 0, NAN, 1])
In [4]: b = array([0, NAN, NAN, 0])
In [5]: fmax(a,b)
Out[5]: array([ 0., 0., NaN, 1.])
In [6]: fmin(a,b)
2008/10/2 Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My only gripe is that they have the same NaN-handling as amin and
friends, which I consider to be broken.
No, these follow well-defined C99 semantics of the fmin() and fmax()
functions in libm. If exactly one of the arguments is a NaN, the
non-NaN
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Stéfan van der Walt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are great, many thanks!
My only gripe is that they have the same NaN-handling as amin and
friends, which I consider to be broken. Others also mentioned that
this should be changed, and I think David C wrote a
Stéfan van der Walt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let me rephrase: I'm not convinced that these C99 semantics provide
an optimal user experience. It worries me greatly that NaN's pop
up in operations and then disappear again. It is entirely possible
for a script to run without failure and
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 02:37, Stéfan van der Walt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi Charles,
2008/10/2 Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In [3]: a = array([NAN, 0, NAN, 1])
In [4]: b = array([0, NAN, NAN, 0])
In [5]:
Charles R Harris wrote:
Yes. If there is any agreement on this I would like to go ahead and do
it. It does change the current behavior of maximum and minimum.
If you do it, please do it with as many tests as possible (it should not
be difficult to have a comprehensive test with *all* float
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 08:22, Charles R Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 02:37, Stéfan van der Walt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi Charles,
2008/10/2 Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In [3]: a =
