issue_comments: 168348251
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/692#issuecomment-168348251 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/692 | 168348251 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDE2ODM0ODI1MQ== | 5635139 | 2016-01-01T23:07:06Z | 2016-01-01T23:07:06Z | MEMBER | Yeah, that seems fairly hacky (presumably this is would still be a problem if we have From my POV I'm still thinking whether XRay can fall back to pandas indexing more extensively (as discussed here). Dims could be stored as Pandas indexes rather than dask / numpy arrays, and the (much cleaner) XRay indexing API could be a simple wrapper of the Pandas API. And it sounds like from your comment the lazy contract could still be honored, if they're loaded when needed? Does that make sense? What are the arguments in the other direction? |
{
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
} |
124441012 |