[Numpy-discussion] Merge of date-time branch completed
Fri Aug 28 16:09:49 CDT 2009
On Aug 28, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Travis Oliphant <email@example.com
> > wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Travis Oliphant <firstname.lastname@example.org
>> > wrote:
>> Hello folks,
>> In keeping with the complaint that the pace of NumPy development is
>> too fast, I've finished the merge of the datetime branch to the
>> core. The trunk builds and all the (previous) tests pass for me.
>> There are several tasks remaining to be done (the current status is
>> definitely still alpha):
>> * write many unit tests for the desired behavior (especially for
>> the many different kinds of dates supported)
>> * finish coercion between datetimes and timedeltas with different
>> * improve the ufuncs that support datetime and timedelta so that
>> they look at the frequency information.
>> * improve the way datetime arrays print
>> * probably several other things that I haven't listed
>> Because of the last point, I will spend my next effort on the work
>> updating the proposal to more clearly define some of the expected
>> behaviors and write documentation about the expected behavior of
>> the new features.
>> Help, reviews, criticisms, suggestions, fixes, and patches, are
>> most welcome.
>> Umm, replacing the previous code 'M' by '.' in generate_umath is a
>> bit obscure. Isn't there a better choice than '.' ?
>> Please make the multiline comments conform to the standard. I spend
>> a lot of time fixing these up... And you broke some I already fixed.
> Sorry about that. Can you remind me what the standard is?
> * blah, blah
> * blah, blah
> It makes the extent of the comment more blatant, especially if it is
> a long comment, and separates it from the code. No more looking for
> that elusive */. For code reading/maintenance blatant is good.
> How about 'P' instead of '.' ? I'll guess that 'M' originally stood
> for method and that's gone, but 'P' follows 'O', which isn't any
> sort of argument but at least 'P' is easier to see on the page ;)
I like it --- was just trying to think of a better one. Thought of
'o', but it looks basically the same.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion