On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 4:02 PM Stefan van der Walt <stef...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Hi Chris, > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 08:13:26 -0700, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote: > > For example, I am very wary of putting a non-fixed width encoding (e.g. > > Utf-8) in a fixed width field. > > > > But this PR is not the place to discuss that. > > Since you've followed that discussion closely, can you push a commit to > my PR with text that more accurately captures the situation? > > Thanks! > Stéfan > Hi Chris, Obviously the string dtype proposal in the roadmap is only a sketch at this point :). I do think that options listed currently (encoded strings with fixed-width storage and variable length strings) cover the breadth of proposals from last time. We may not want to implement all of them in NumPy, but I think we can agree that there are use cases for all them, even if only as external dtypes? Would it help to add "and/or" after the first bullet? Mostly I care about having like to have "improve string dtypes" in some form on the roadmap, and thought it would be helpful to list the concrete proposals that I recall. The actual design choices (especially if we proposal to change any default behavior) will certainly need a NEP. Best, Stephan
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
