If we consider it a bug, we could patch it in 1.16.1 (or are we still waiting on 1.16.0?), which would minimize the backwards compatibility cost.
Eric On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 10:05 Stefan van der Walt <stef...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 08 Jan 2019 09:57:03 -0800, Tyler Reddy wrote: > > np.timedelta64(5) % np.timedelta64(0) -> numpy.timedelta64(0) > > > > In contrast, np.float64(1) % np.float64(0) -> nan > > > > There's a suggestion that we should switch to returning NaT for the > > timedelta64 case for consistency, and that this probably isn't too > harmful > > given how recent these additions are. > > That seems like a reasonable change to me; one could probably consider the > previous behavior a bug? > > Stéfan > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
