Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> If one wants to have all NaNs in one equivalency class
> (e.g. if used as a key-value for example in pandas) it
> is almost impossible to do so in a consistent way
> without taking a performance hit.
ISTM the performance of the equivalent class case is far less important than
the one we were trying to solve. Given a choice we should prefer helping
normal unadorned instances rather than giving preference to a subclass that
redefines the usual behaviors.
In CPython, it is a fact of life that overriding builtin behaviors with pure
python code always incurs a performance hit. Also, in your example, the
subclass isn't technically correct because it relies on a non-guaranteed
implementation details. It likely isn't even the fastest approach.
The only guaranteed behaviors are that math.isnan(x) reliably detects a NaN and
that x!=x when x is a NaN. Those are the only assured tools in the uphill
battle to fight the weird intrinsic nature of NaNs.
So one possible solution is to replace all the NaNs with a canonical
placeholder value that doesn't have undesired properties:
{None if isnan(x) else x for x in arr}
That relies on guaranteed behaviors and is reasonably fast. IMO that beats
trying to reprogram float('NaN') to behave the opposite of how it was designed.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue43475>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
