Charles R Harris wrote: > > I'd just look at the difference and see if it exceeded some fraction > of the expected value. There is the problem of zero, which could be > handled in the usual way as diff < abserr + relerr. I think abserr > would need to be a new keyword with a default value. Since the relerr > is specified by digits you probably need 1/10**digits, but there > should be no problem with that. Really, only a multiplication should > be needed to determine the precision to x digits.
Ok, I will have a shot at this. > Nan and +/- inf need to be special cased but I haven't thought about that. They are a constant source of frustration. It is like it defies my brain, and I end up doing very stupid things after working for too long with nan and inf, especially when complex numbers are involved :) > > I agree that the broadcasting is both a convenience and a trap here, > but its probably a bit late to change that. I thought about having an additional assert_exactly_equal: both arguments will need to have the same shape and type (dtype for arrays), negative zero and positive zero will be different as well. I also have another function which may be useful in one of my scipy branch for scipy.special: having the max error in term of ULPS. cheers, David _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
