On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe not directly relevant, but also very clearly why one should ideally >> not use these a >> > all! >> > I wouldn't say not at all -- I'd say "not in some circumstances" > Perhaps even less relevant, but if you do need absolute times (and thus >> work with UTC or TAI or GPS), have a look at astropy's `Time` class. It >> does use two doubles, >> > interesting -- I wonder why not two integers? > but with that maintains "sub-nanosecond precision over times spanning the >> age of the universe" [1]. >> > well, we do all need that! Seriously, though -- if we are opening all this up, maybe it's worth considering other options, rather than kludging datetime64 -- particularly if there is something someone has already implemented and tested... But for now, Stephan's patches to make datetime64 far more useful and easy are very welcome! -CHB [1] http://docs.astropy.org/en/latest/time/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > -- 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
