html_url,issue_url,id,node_id,user,created_at,updated_at,author_association,body,reactions,performed_via_github_app,issue
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/1281#issuecomment-282155745,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1281,282155745,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDI4MjE1NTc0NQ==,5635139,2017-02-23T23:29:28Z,2017-02-23T23:29:28Z,MEMBER,"> A lambda solution is more difficult (maybe impossible?) because you need to update the attrs and return the original object to continue the pipe.

Right, yes. Then there's no reasonable solution without this addition, I think","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,209523348
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/1281#issuecomment-282123529,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1281,282123529,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDI4MjEyMzUyOQ==,5635139,2017-02-23T21:15:53Z,2017-02-23T21:15:53Z,MEMBER,"Thanks for the PR @hsharrison 

Do ppl think the cost of an extra method is worth the cleaner syntax? Would `ds.pipe(lambda x: x.attrs.update(foo=bar')` suffice? It's easier to add methods than to remove them, though this approach does look nicer. 

If python had a cleaner lambda...","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,209523348