Various fixes for datetime arrays. #110
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
The changes look alright to me, I've gone ahead and merged it. Thanks for the patches! |
luyahan
pushed a commit
to plctlab/numpy
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 25, 2024
feat: Add vsubw_s8
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi
I was playing around with np.datetime64 arrays and found some problems with masked arrays and the "io" classes. The problems mostly come about from the datetime64 type ("M") not containing as much information as the dtype ("M[us]").
The extra test in test_io.py exercises these fixes.
Cheers
Ben