[Numpy-discussion] fixing up datetime

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris@gmail....
Wed Jun 1 16:04:18 CDT 2011

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@googlemail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Mark Wiebe <mwwiebe@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey all,
>> So I'm doing a summer internship at Enthought, and the first thing they
>> asked me to look into is finishing the datetime type in numpy. It turns out
>> that the estimates of how complete the type was weren't accurate, and to
>> support what the NEP describes required generalizing the ufunc type
>> resolution system. I also found that the date/time parsing code (based on
>> mxDateTime) was not robust, producing something for almost any arbitrary
>> garbage input. I've replaced much of the broken code and implemented a lot
>> of the functionality, and thought this might be a good point to do a pull
>> request on what I've got and get feedback on the issues I've run into.
>> * The existing datetime-related API is probably not useful, and in fact
>> those functions aren't used internally anymore. Is it reasonable to remove
>> the functions, or do we just deprecate them?
> If the existing API is really not useful (which requires some
> discussion/review I guess) then I think it would be good to announce that on
> the mailing list and throw it out ASAP. The API can't have many users yet,
> since it has only just been released (again), so the sooner it's gone the
> better. I know normal policy would be to deprecate first, but I don't really
> see the point.

> And after the removal of datetime from 1.4.1 and now this, I'd be in favor
> of putting a large "experimental" sticker over the whole thing until further
> notice.
Do we have a good way to do that?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20110601/af9eb8e9/attachment.html 

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list