No, but Python is a good source, as the project goal is to build on top of it using the same rules. So if a Python built-in equivalent exhibits some behavior, we should emulate it (except in the cases where we try to do better, like arbitrary precision vs. machine precision).
And anyway, Python float() will most likely follow IEEE, so in this case they will be equivalent. I do agree that there are cases where neither will give us any clue about what to do (nan**x for example). Aaron Meurer On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Joachim Durchholz <j...@durchholz.org> wrote: > Am 22.02.2012 03:34, schrieb smichr: > >> Ronan cites IEEE 754 as specifying that powers nan**0 and 1**nan both >> be 1. I would suggest that for SymPy we should return NaN for both >> cases. Other ideas? > > > I'm not sure that IEEE is a good source for SymPy. IEEE's primary focus is > numerics, SymPy is about symbolics. > So while IEEE is definitely a good source of hints, we should check whether > the reasoning behind each still holds in a symbolic context. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
