On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Sankarshan Mudkavi <smudk...@uwaterloo.ca>wrote:
> So is the consensus that we don't accept any tags at all (not even > temporarily)? Would that break too much existing code? > > Cheers, > Sankarshan > > On Apr 1, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Alexander Belopolsky <ndar...@mac.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> In [6]: a[0] = "garbage" >> ValueError: could not convert string to float: garbage >> >> (Cf, "Errors should never pass silently".) Any reason why datetime64 >> should be different? >> > > datetime64 is different because it has NaT support from the start. NaN > support for floats seems to be an afterthought if not an accident of > implementation. > > And it looks like some errors do pass silently: > > >>> a[0] = "1" > # not a TypeError > > But I withdraw my suggestion. The closer datetime64 behavior is to > numeric types the better. > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > > Are we in a position to start looking at implementation? If so, it would be useful to have a collection of test cases, i.e., typical uses with specified results. That should also cover conversion from/(to?) datetime.datetime. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
