<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Stephan Hoyer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:shoyer@gmail.com" target="_blank">shoyer@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Currently, NaT (not a time) does not have any special treatment when used in comparison with datetime64/timedelta64 objects.<div><br></div><div>To me, this seems a little crazy for a value meant to denote a missing/invalid time -- NaT should really have the same comparison behavior as NaN. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, indeed.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Whether you call this an API change or a bug fix is somewhat of a judgment call, but I believe this change is certainly consistent with the goals of datetime64. It's also consistent with how NaT is used in pandas, which uses its own wrappers around datetime64 precisely to fix these sorts of issues.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Getting closer to Pandas is a Good Thing too...</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>So I'm raising this here to get some opinions on the right path forward:</div><div>1. Is this a bug fix that we can backport to 1.10.x?</div><div>2. Is this an API change that should wait until 1.11?</div><div>3. Is this something where we need to start issuing warnings and deprecate the existing behavior?</div><div><br></div><div>My vote would be for option 2.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree.</div><div><br></div><div>-CHB</div><div><br></div></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><br>Christopher Barker, Ph.D.<br>Oceanographer<br><br>Emergency Response Division<br>NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice<br>7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax<br>Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception<br><br><a href="mailto:Chris.Barker@noaa.gov" target="_blank">Chris.Barker@noaa.gov</a></div>
</div></div>