issue_comments: 1002671461
This data as json
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/6124#issuecomment-1002671461 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6124 | 1002671461 | IC_kwDOAMm_X847w41l | 3698640 | 2021-12-29T16:18:35Z | 2021-12-29T16:18:35Z | CONTRIBUTOR | Yeah… I do understand how it’s currently working and why, and the behavior is certainly intuitive to those who appreciate the mapping inheritance. That said, I feel I have to make a last stand argument because this trips people up quite often (on my team and elsewhere). I haven’t yet come across an example of anyone using this correctly, but I see users misusing it all the time. The examples and behavior you’re showing @Illviljan seem to me like more the natural result of an implementation detail than a critical principle of the dataset design. While it’s obvious why I don’t know much about the mapping protocol or how closely it must be followed. Is the idea here that packages building on xarray (or interoperability features in e.g. numpy or dask) depend on a strict adherence to the full spec? |
{ "total_count": 1, "+1": 1, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
1090229430 |