Looks like we're still on 1.16.0rc2 -- released 4 days ago.
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 10:28, Eric Wieser
wrote:
> If we consider it a bug, we could patch it in 1.16.1 (or are we still
> waiting on 1.16.0?), which would minimize the backwards compatibility cost.
>
> Eric
>
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 10:
If we consider it a bug, we could patch it in 1.16.1 (or are we still
waiting on 1.16.0?), which would minimize the backwards compatibility cost.
Eric
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 10:05 Stefan van der Walt
wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2019 09:57:03 -0800, Tyler Reddy wrote:
> > np.timedelta64(5) % np.timed
On Tue, 08 Jan 2019 09:57:03 -0800, Tyler Reddy wrote:
> np.timedelta64(5) % np.timedelta64(0) -> numpy.timedelta64(0)
>
> In contrast, np.float64(1) % np.float64(0) -> nan
>
> There's a suggestion that we should switch to returning NaT for the
> timedelta64 case for consistency, and that this pr
I would say this is desirable behaviour, but I’m still +0.8 on this for
backward compatibility reasons.
I doubt anyone would build code that relies on this though… They would almost
certainly check for the zero in the denominator rather than the return value.
Best Regards,
Hameer Abbasi
> On T
