[Numpy-discussion] datetime update
teoliphant at gmail.com
Tue Nov 24 18:24:25 EST 2009
On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:53 PM, Pierre GM wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:42 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>> I've made a few changes to datetime today and spent some time
>> looking over what is there and what remains to be implemented.
> As always, many thanks for your work !!
>> Basically, the biggest thing left to do is to implement the low-
>> level casting functions to and from datetime types and other numpy
>> In addition, the ufuncs need some auditing to make sure the right
>> thing is being done when mixing different units. After that, lots
>> and lots of additional tests need to be written. Once that is
>> done, then most of the features should be available, but I suspect
>> a few lingering issues might crop up and require fixing or fleshing
>> out as well.
>> I was hoping that someone would be able to contribute more tests
>> for datetime. I will spend some time on the casting functions
>> over the next few weeks and write a few tests.
> Fortunately, the new modifications will make it easier to write such
> tests... But in any case, we can assume that what is proposed in the
> NEP should work, right ?
Yes, that is correct.
>> I also removed numpy.datetime and numpy.timedelta from the
>> namespace (replaced them with numpy.datetime_ and
>> numpy.timedelta_). These were just short-hand for
>> numpy.datetime64 and numpy.timedelta64 respectively. Avoiding the
>> collision seemed like a good idea.
>> Right now, what works is "viewing" arrays as datetime data-types
>> and getting and setting date-time arrays using datetime objects.
>> I would like to improve it so that setting with strings, integers,
>> and other Python objects works as well.
> Did you use any of Marty Fuhry's GSoC work ? What are the potential
> issues that could prevent an easy integration ?
Yes, I did actually. His work was quite helpful in converting from
date-time objects. The major issues were the approach taken to a few
of the functions was not quite right, but quite a bit of the raw code
I just used. Marty deserves kudos for his work here. It was very
useful and helpful. Please pass that on to him.
>> Also, adding simple integers works, but
>> Dave C suggested removing the new C-API calls which sounds like a
>> good idea to me for 1.4.0. Which functions get exported into the
>> C-API for 1.5.0 could then receive some discussion.
> Wouldn't it be easier to leave the C-APi as it is now, even for
> 1.4.0, but not to advertize it before 1.5.0 ?
Not necessarily. My understanding is that we just have to turn-off
exposure of the API and leave everything else the same.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion