On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:56 PM, David Cournapeau < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nathan Bell wrote: > > > > +1 for NaN-always-propagates since we have explicit variants for the > > alternative semantics. > > > > Users are more likely to remember that "NaNs always propagate" than > > "as stated in the C99 standard...". > > I don't know. I would like to agree with you, but OTOH, starting to go > against the C99 standard may bring us quite far. FWIW, matlab has the > same behavior as mandated by C99 (but not R, by default). > > The problem I have with fmax is that: > - isgreaterequal may be slow ? May well be red-herring. For gcc, isgreaterequal should be the same as >= the way numpy is set up now, i.e., no errors raised. Looking at the assembly it all looked pretty clean with both numbers stored in the FPU. What I couldn't figure is why every compare needed to be done afresh, i.e. a > b and a == b had to run two compares, this on variables declared constant. I'm kind of inclined to follow the C standard as I figure there is already a lot of discussion behind it and it would be kind of a waste to hash it all out again on this list. Chuck
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
