On 2015-03-06, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In a language like python with decent exceptions we do not need nans.
>
> Not so. I could perhaps accept that we don't need signalling NaNs, as
> they can be replaced with exceptions, but quiet NaNs are by definition
> _not_ exceptions.
And quiet NaNs are very, very useful.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! A can of ASPARAGUS,
at 73 pigeons, some LIVE ammo,
gmail.com and a FROZEN DAQUIRI!!
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
