On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >> On 18 Feb 2014 07:07, "Robert Kern" <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >>> > Perhaps integer power should raise an error on negative powers? That way >>> > people will at least be directed to use arr ** -1.0 instead of silently >>> > getting nonsense from arr ** -1. >>> >>> Controllable by np.seterr(invalid=...)? I could get behind that. >> >> I'm not sure the np.seterr part would work or be a good idea, given that we >> have no way to return or propagate NaN... I vote for just an unconditional >> error. > > <shrug> We issue configurable warning/error/ignore behavior for > integer 0/0 through this mechanism too without any NaNs. However, > that's `divide` and not `invalid`. Your point is taken that `invalid` > usually implies that a `NaN` is generated, though I don't think this > is ever stated anywhere. I just suggested `invalid` as that is usually > what we use for function domain violations.
I thought 0/0 = 0 has been removed a few versions ago. Does numpy still have silent casting of nan to 0 in ints. I thought invalid and divide error/warnings are for floating point when we want to signal that the outcome is nan or inf, not that we are casting and return a result that is just wrong. Josef > > -- > Robert Kern > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion