[Numpy-discussion] label NA and datetime as experimental

[Richard Hattersley]

OK - that's useful feedback.

Thanks!

On 26 March 2012 21:03, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Charles R Harris
> <charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Richard Hattersley
>> <rhattersley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 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
> (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.numeric.general/44162/focus=44385),
> 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.
>
> Ralf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>