[issue19161] collections Counter handles nan strangely

[Mark Dickinson]

Mark Dickinson added the comment:

> perhaps collections.Counter should handle nans as a special case

I don't think that would be a good idea:  I'd rather that collections.Counter didn't special case NaNs in any way, but instead treated NaNs following the same (admittedly somewhat awkward) rules that all the other Python collections do---namely, for NaNs, containment effectively works by object identity.

> I'm really using a pandas Series

Okay, that makes sense.  It's a bit unfortunate that NumPy creates a new NaN object every time you read a NaN value out of an array, so that you get e.g.,

>>> from numpy import array, nan, isnan
>>> import numpy as np
>>> my_list = [1.2, 2.3, np.nan, np.nan]
>>> my_list[2] is my_list[3]
True
>>> my_array = np.array(my_list)
>>> my_array[2] is my_array[3]
False

Or even:

>>> my_array[2] is my_array[2]
False

I guess you're stuck with using Pandas functionality like `dropna` and `isnull` to deal with missing and non-missing values separately.

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue19161>
_______________________________________