On 01/29/2015 09:58 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> > I was thinking elapsed time. Nanoseconds can be rather crude for that
> > depending on the measurement.
>
> Wouldn't the user just keep elapsed time as a
> count, or floating point number, in whatever units the instrument spits
>
>
> > I was thinking elapsed time. Nanoseconds can be rather crude for that
> > depending on the measurement.
>
> Wouldn't the user just keep elapsed time as a
> count, or floating point number, in whatever units the instrument spits
> out? Why does it need to be treated in a different way from
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Eric Firing wrote:
> On 2015/01/28 6:29 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
> >
> >
> > And as for "The 64 bits of long long really isn't enough and leads
> > to all sorts of compromises". not long enough for what? I've always
> > thought that what we need is
On 2015/01/28 6:29 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> And as for "The 64 bits of long long really isn't enough and leads
> to all sorts of compromises". not long enough for what? I've always
> thought that what we need is the ability to set the epoch. Does
> anyone ever need picoseco
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> Sorry not to notice this for a while -- I've been distracted by
> python-ideas. (Nathaniel knows what I'm talking about ;-) )
>
> I do like the idea of prototyping some DateTime stuff -- it really isn't
> clear what's needed or how to do it
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> I tend to agree with Nathaniel that a ndarray subclass is less than ideal
> -- they tend to get ugly fast. But maybe that is the only way to do
> anything in Python, short of a major refactor to be able to write a dtype
> in Python -- which w
Sorry not to notice this for a while -- I've been distracted by
python-ideas. (Nathaniel knows what I'm talking about ;-) )
I do like the idea of prototyping some DateTime stuff -- it really isn't
clear what's needed or how to do it at this point. Though we did more or
less settle on a reasonable
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Charles R Harris
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi All,
>>> >
>>> > I'm playin
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I'm playing with the idea of building a simplified datetime class on
>> top of
>> > the
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'm playing with the idea of building a simplified datetime class on top
> of
> > the current numpy implementation. I believe Pandas does something like
> this
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm playing with the idea of building a simplified datetime class on top of
> the current numpy implementation. I believe Pandas does something like this,
> and blaze will (does?) have a simplified version. The reason for the n
Hi All,
I'm playing with the idea of building a simplified datetime class on top of
the current numpy implementation. I believe Pandas does something like
this, and blaze will (does?) have a simplified version. The reason for the
new class would be to have an easier, and hopefully more portable, A
12 matches
Mail list logo
