On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Ralf Gommers <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Mark Wiebe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> So I'm doing a summer internship at Enthought, and the first thing they >> asked me to look into is finishing the datetime type in numpy. It turns out >> that the estimates of how complete the type was weren't accurate, and to >> support what the NEP describes required generalizing the ufunc type >> resolution system. I also found that the date/time parsing code (based on >> mxDateTime) was not robust, producing something for almost any arbitrary >> garbage input. I've replaced much of the broken code and implemented a lot >> of the functionality, and thought this might be a good point to do a pull >> request on what I've got and get feedback on the issues I've run into. >> >> * The existing datetime-related API is probably not useful, and in fact >> those functions aren't used internally anymore. Is it reasonable to remove >> the functions, or do we just deprecate them? >> > > If the existing API is really not useful (which requires some > discussion/review I guess) then I think it would be good to announce that on > the mailing list and throw it out ASAP. The API can't have many users yet, > since it has only just been released (again), so the sooner it's gone the > better. I know normal policy would be to deprecate first, but I don't really > see the point. > > +1 > And after the removal of datetime from 1.4.1 and now this, I'd be in favor > of putting a large "experimental" sticker over the whole thing until further > notice. > > Do we have a good way to do that? Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
