Here another oddity to add to the list In [28]: issubclass(np.datetime64,np.integer) Out[28]: False
In [29]: issubclass(np.timedelta64,np.integer) Out[29]: True On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Stephan Hoyer <sho...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Currently, NaT (not a time) does not have any special treatment when used >> in comparison with datetime64/timedelta64 objects. >> >> 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. >> > > Yes, indeed. > > >> 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. >> > > Getting closer to Pandas is a Good Thing too... > > >> So I'm raising this here to get some opinions on the right path forward: >> 1. Is this a bug fix that we can backport to 1.10.x? >> 2. Is this an API change that should wait until 1.11? >> 3. Is this something where we need to start issuing warnings and >> deprecate the existing behavior? >> >> My vote would be for option 2. >> > > I agree. > > -CHB > > -- > > Christopher Barker, Ph.D. > Oceanographer > > Emergency Response Division > NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice > 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax > Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception > > chris.bar...@noaa.gov > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
