Is nan in (nan,) correct?

[Rustom Mody]

On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 3:31:58 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Rustom Mody  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.

My impression (maybe I am wrong):
"Catch an exception and ignore it" is a way of converting signalling to quiet
With the added advantage of being able to tweak the specs of what happens when
nan op normal to one's taste