Steve Holden wrote: > Mark Dickinson wrote: >> On Feb 14, 11:09 pm, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> You also need to think about how conditionals interact with >>> quiet NANs. Properly, comparisons like ">" have three possibilities: >> >> True. There was a recent change to Decimal to make comparisons (other >> than !=, ==) with NaNs do the "right thing": that is, raise a Python >> exception, unless the Invalid flag is not trapped, in which case they >> return False (and also raise the Invalid flag). I imagine something >> similar would make sense for floats. >> >>> True, False, and "raise". Many implementations don't do that well, >>> which means that you lose trichotomy. "==" has issues; properly, >>> "+INF" is not equal to itself. >> >> I don't understand: why would +INF not be equal to itself? Having >> INF == INF be True seems like something that makes sense both >> mathematically and computationally. >> [...] > > There are an uncountable number of infinities, all different.
+ALEPH0? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list