Looks like we're still on 1.16.0rc2 -- released 4 days ago. On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 10:28, Eric Wieser <wieser.eric+nu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
