That makes sense. I figured that ambiguity was the reason it was removed.
Thank you for the explanation. I'm a big fan of your work. John On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Mark Wiebe <mwwi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey John, > > NumPy doesn't provide this, because it's already provided by the > datetime.date.strftime function in Python: > > http://docs.python.org/library/datetime.html#datetime.date.strftime > > One reason this format isn't supported automatically is that parsing > "MM/dd/YY" is inherently ambiguous, and the convention is different in > different parts of the world. The date "01/02/03" could be January 2nd 2003 > or February 3rd, 2001, for example. The datetime constructor follows the > ISO 8601 standard for date and time formatting, which is unambiguous. This > was specified in the datetime NEP, but the 1.6 implementation unfortunately > hadn't followed that part of the spec. > > Cheers, > Mark > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:40 PM, John Salvatier <jsalv...@u.washington.edu > > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Is there a way to specify a format for the datetime64 constructor? The >> constructor doesn't have a doc. I have dates in a file with the format >> "MM/dd/YY". datetime64 used to be able to parse these in 1.6.1 but the dev >> version throws an error. >> >> Cheers, >> John >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NumPy-Discussion mailing list >> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
