Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!prichard.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com>
Subject: Re: float("nan") in set or as key
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 23:14:15 +0100
User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity.)
Message-Id: <pan.2011.06.06.22.14.07.563000@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
References: <mailman.2206.1306626083.9059.python-list@python.org> <94dkd3F7k4U1@mid.individual.net> <4de1e3e7$0$2195$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> <4de22007$0$29996$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <pan.2011.05.29.21.19.12.375000@nowhere.com> <4de2d746$0$29996$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <pan.2011.06.01.20.40.18.453000@nowhere.com> <4de75dd5$0$29983$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <pan.2011.06.02.20.47.01.344000@nowhere.com> <isasfm$inl$1@reader1.panix.com> <pan.2011.06.03.23.29.04.984000@nowhere.com> <4deb2e65$0$29996$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <pan.2011.06.05.18.14.58.407000@nowhere.com> <4dec2575$0$29996$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 30
Organization: Zen Internet
NNTP-Posting-Host: 229a1410.news.zen.co.uk
X-Trace: DXC=A?VPH:Kog;c@1V>X_9IZai0g@SS;SF6ngRiiCXJE[K>ge5=_V;8mNXnImJb1Y7BL`dB^L>TSe7Voc
X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:7112

On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 00:55:18 +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> And thus we come back full circle. Hundreds of words, and I'm still no 
> closer to understanding why you think that "NAN == NAN" should be an 
> error.

Well, you could try improving your reading comprehension. Counselling
might help.

AFAICT, your main problem is that you can't distinguish between not
agreeing with a particular argument and being unable to even recognise
the existence of the argument.

A really big clue is here:

> why you think that "NAN == NAN" should be an error

Given that my very first comment in the thread was:

> > Wrong.
> 
> That's overstating it. There's a good argument to be made for ...

I never said that it /should/ be an error, and later explicitly stated
that I wasn't arguing for it but pointing out that it's /arguable/.

But you appear unable to comprehend such distinctions. Don't agree with
the argument, don't accept the argument, don't recognise that there is an
argument; these all appear to be the same thing.