Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4a.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.000 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'algorithm': 0.04; 'from:addr:yahoo.co.uk': 0.04; 'url:pipermail': 0.05; 'lawrence': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'topic:': 0.09; 'python': 0.11; 'bug': 0.12; 'language.': 0.14; 'agree.': 0.16; 'behavior,': 0.16; 'discusses': 0.16; 'nan': 0.16; 'nick': 0.16; 'python-dev,': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'sorting': 0.16; 'language': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'thu,': 0.19; 'code,': 0.22; 'header:User- Agent:1': 0.23; 'compare': 0.26; 'post': 0.26; 'header:X -Complaints-To:1': 0.27; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'chris': 0.29; "i'm": 0.30; 'probably': 0.32; 'quite': 0.32; 'url:python': 0.33; 'ago': 0.33; 'entirely': 0.33; 'subject: (': 0.35; 'subject:?': 0.36; 'url:org': 0.36; 'clear': 0.37; 'to:addr :python-list': 0.38; 'extremely': 0.39; 'reported': 0.39; 'sure': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'received:org': 0.40; 'major': 0.40; 'url:mail': 0.40; 'days': 0.60; 'our': 0.64; 'charset:windows-1252': 0.65; 'mar': 0.68; 'url:python-dev': 0.84; 'serious': 0.97 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Mark Lawrence Subject: Re: Is nan in (nan,) correct? Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 04:46:01 +0000 References: <54f90c53$0$12994$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <858ufazvff.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <54F91C70.6020303@stoneleaf.us> <85wq2uyffs.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <1425616626.2734684.236278461.1D91F36F@webmail.messagingengine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host-92-24-211-56.ppp.as43234.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 In-Reply-To: <1425616626.2734684.236278461.1D91F36F@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.19 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 22 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1425617174 news.xs4all.nl 2830 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:44616 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:86985 On 06/03/2015 04:37, random832@fastmail.us wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015, at 22:49, Chris Angelico wrote: >> I'm not sure it's just an optimization. Compare this post from >> python-dev, where Nick Coghlan discusses the same topic: >> >> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-July/135476.html > > If it is a bug for NaN to "infect" containers' behavior, we need to take > a serious look at sort(). > I entirely agree. With the extremely serious bug that was reported (and fixed) just a few days ago in the Python sorting algorithm and/or code, it is quite clear to me that it probably needs a major rethink. After you :) -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence