Bugs item #1514428, was opened at 2006-06-29 11:19
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rhettinger
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1514428&group_id=5470
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Python Library
Group: Python 2.5
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Nick Maclaren (nmm)
>Assigned to: Tim Peters (tim_one)
Summary: NaN comparison in Decimal broken
Initial Comment:
Methinks this is a bit off :-) True should be False.
Python 2.5b1 (trunk:47059, Jun 29 2006, 14:26:46)
[GCC 4.1.0 (SUSE Linux)] on linux2
>>> import decimal
>>> d = decimal.Decimal
>>> inf = d("inf")
>>> nan = d("nan")
>>> nan > inf
True
>>> nan < inf
False
>>> inf > nan
True
>>> inf < nan
False
b
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger)
Date: 2007-01-05 21:05
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=80475
Originator: NO
The Decimal Arithmetic Specification says that NaN comparisons should
return NaN. The decimal module correctly implements this through the
compare() method:
>>> nan.compare(nan)
Decimal('NaN')
Since python's < and > operators return a boolean result, the standard is
silent on what should be done. The current implementation uses the
__cmp__ method which can only return -1, 0, or 1, so there is not a direct
way to make both < and > both return False.
If you want to go beyond the standard and have both < and > return False
for all NaN comparisons, then the __cmp__ implementation would need to be
replaced with rich comparisons. I'm not sure that this is desirable.
IMO, that would be no better than the current arbitrary choice where all
comparisons involving NaN report self > other. If someone has an
application that would be harmed by the current implementation, then it
should almost certainly be use the standard compliant compare() method
instead of the boolean < and > operators.
Tim, what say you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: CharlesMerriam (charlesmerriam)
Date: 2006-08-23 03:43
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1581732
More specifically, any comparison with a NaN should equal
False, even inf, per IEEE 754. A good starting point to
convince oneself of this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaN.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Nick Maclaren (nmm)
Date: 2006-07-13 05:35
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=42444
It's still there in Beta 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1514428&group_id=5470
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
