On 19/09/06, Tim Hochberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure where the breakpoint is, but I was seeing failures for all > three sort types with N as high as 10000. I suspect that they're all > broken in the presence of NaNs. I further suspect you'd need some > punishingly slow n**2 algorithm to be robust in the presence of NaNs.
Not at all. Just temporarily make NaNs compare greater than any other floating-point value and use quicksort (say). You can even do this for python lists without much trouble. That's actually a viable suggestion for numpy's sorting, although it would be kind of ugly to implement: do a quick any(isnan(A)), and if not, use the fast stock sorting algorithms; if there is a NaN somewhere in the array, use a version of the sort that has a tweaked comparison function so the NaNs wind up at the end and are easy to trim off. But the current situation, silently returning arrays in which the non-NaNs are unsorted, is really bad. A. M. Archibald ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/numpy-discussion
