Note that numpy has a set of nan* functions that ignore NaNs. I’m not suggesting that here, but it is prior art to be considered, and I do like that it explicitly is ignoring NaNs.
> - raise an exception > > - return NAN > > - ignore it (filter out NANs) > > Does anyone have any strong feelings about what should be the default? Filtering our NaNs should *not* be the default. Often NaN means missing data, but could also be the result of an error of some sort. Incorrect results are much worse than errors — NaNs should never be ignored unless explicitly asked for. Beyond that, I’d prefer returning NaN to raising an exception, but either is OK. -CHB > > > -- > Steve > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/EDRF2NR4UOYMSKE64KDI2SWUMKPAJ3YM/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > -- Christopher Barker, PhD (Chris) Python Language Consulting - Teaching - Scientific Software Development - Desktop GUI and Web Development - wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/UK2WTSMEGH5TYH3XMS74B2NKSXID3Q4S/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
