POC: NA-only behavior for numpy-nullable dtypes #61708
Draft
+170
−55
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
jbrockmendel
added
the
PDEP missing values
|
Im thinking the check should be done once at dtype instantiation |
This was referenced Jun 26, 2025
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def using_pdep16_nan_behavior() -> bool: | ||
| _mode_options = _global_config["mode"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As this is a POC, feel free to ignore for now, but if we move forward with this, I would prefer to use future rather than mode, unless we expect to keep the two "modes" indefinitely and allow users to switch between them. Also, we would probably want something different from "pdep16_nan_behavior". Just a comment for future discussion. no need to change now.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is the first of several POCs stemming from the discussion in #61618. The main goal is to see how invasive it would be.
Specifically, this implements the NaN behavior described in PDEP16 #58988.
Functionally this makes it so that:
As a result, I expect implementing this would solve most issues labeled as "PDEP missing values". e.g. I just checked and it does address #54876.