[Numpy-discussion] nan, sign, and all that
Thu Oct 2 02:42:58 CDT 2008
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 02:37, Stéfan van der Walt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi Charles,
> 2008/10/2 Charles R Harris <email@example.com>:
>> In : a = array([NAN, 0, NAN, 1])
>> In : b = array([0, NAN, NAN, 0])
>> In : fmax(a,b)
>> Out: array([ 0., 0., NaN, 1.])
>> In : fmin(a,b)
>> Out: array([ 0., 0., NaN, 0.])
> 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.
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 argument is returned. This is *not* the current behavior of
amin() et al., which just do naive comparisons.
> Others also mentioned that
> this should be changed, and I think David C wrote a patch for it (but
> I am not informed as to the speed implications).
> If I had to choose, this would be my preferred output:
> In : fmax(a,b)
> Out: array([ NaN, NaN, NaN, 1.])
Chuck proposes letting minimum() and maximum() have that behavior.
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
though it had an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
More information about the Numpy-discussion