[Numpy-discussion] label NA and datetime as experimental
Mon Mar 26 15:13:51 CDT 2012
OK - that's useful feedback.
On 26 March 2012 21:03, Ralf Gommers <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Charles R Harris
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Richard Hattersley
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> My team are currently experimenting with extending datetime to allow
>>> alternative, non-physical calendars (e.g. 360-day used by climate
>>> modellers). Once we've got a handle on the options we'd like to
>>> propose the extensions/changes back to NumPy. Obviously we'd like to
>>> avoid wasted effort, so are there some aspects of datetime64 which are
>>> more experimental than others? Is there a summary of unresolved issues
>>> and/or plans for change?
>> I believe datetime is already used by Pandas, so I don't think there will
>> be major changes there. I'm not aware of open issues, but I could be wrong.
>> The calenders are a bit independent, so I think the best procedure is to go
>> ahead with your work. We want to leave some wiggle room since new features
>> often need a little time to mature. That's how it looks to me anyway.
> That's my understanding too. Perhaps Mark can comment on the current status.
> That status and changes need to still be described in the release notes by
> the way.
> The experimental tag is mostly due to the datetime history: it was
> introduced in 1.4.0, removed again in 1.4.1, reintroduced in 1.6.0, the API
> then labeled not useful
> then more changes for this release. I hope it's stable now, but seeing what
> came before and that it still doesn't work with MinGW it's hard to be sure.
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
More information about the NumPy-Discussion