On 6/07/20 3:55 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
With that interpretation, a NAN passed as the lower or upper bounds can be seen as another way of saying "no lower bounds" (i.e. negative infinity) or "no upper bounds" (i.e. positive infinity), not "some unknown bounds".
Python already has a value for representing missing or unspecified data, i.e. None. So we don't need to use NaN for that, and can instead reserve it to mean "no correct answer".
I agree with you that `clamp(lower=x, value=NAN, upper= x)` should return x.
I don't think I agree with that, because it relies on assuming that the lower and upper bounds can meaningfully be compared for exact equality, which may not be true depending on the circumstances.
Treat a NAN bounds as *missing data*, which effectively means "there is no limit", i.e. as if you had passed the infinity of the appropriate sign for the bounds.
If one of the bounds is missing, you don't need clamp(), you can use min() or max(). -- Greg _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/WD4RO57XMIKUDYWAXCRPE3MSJ2RZEBRU/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
