OK - that's useful feedback.
Thanks!
On 26 March 2012 21:03, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Richard Hattersley
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> My team are currently experimenting with extending dat
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Richard Hattersley > wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> My team are currently experimenting with extending datetime to allow
>> alternative, non-physical calendars (e.g. 360-day used by climate
>> modellers). Once
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Richard Hattersley
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My team are currently experimenting with extending datetime to allow
> alternative, non-physical calendars (e.g. 360-day used by climate
> modellers). Once we've got a handle on the options we'd like to
> propose the extensions/c
Hi,
My team are currently experimenting with extending datetime to allow
alternative, non-physical calendars (e.g. 360-day used by climate
modellers). Once we've got a handle on the options we'd like to
propose the extensions/changes back to NumPy. Obviously we'd like to
avoid wasted effort, so ar
Hi,
We decided to label both NA and datetime APIs as experimental for the 1.7.0
release. I made a PR that does this, please review:
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/240
Ralf
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.sci
