Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!not-for-mail
From: Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Is nan in (nan,) correct?
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:34:30 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <mdche6$ob$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <mailman.67.1425594415.21433.python-list@python.org> <dd9a23e8-39fc-4a1f-87f1-d2edbcc3e0e6@googlegroups.com> <mailman.101.1425636069.21433.python-list@python.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67-130-15-94.dia.static.qwest.net
X-Trace: reader1.panix.com 1425656070 779 67.130.15.94 (6 Mar 2015 15:34:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:34:30 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Linux)
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:87028

On 2015-03-06, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In a language like python with decent exceptions we do not need nans.
>
> Not so. I could perhaps accept that we don't need signalling NaNs, as
> they can be replaced with exceptions, but quiet NaNs are by definition
> _not_ exceptions.

And quiet NaNs are very, very useful.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! A can of ASPARAGUS,
                                  at               73 pigeons, some LIVE ammo,
                              gmail.com            and a FROZEN DAQUIRI!!