issue_comments: 370271596
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/1961#issuecomment-370271596 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1961 | 370271596 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM3MDI3MTU5Ng== | 1217238 | 2018-03-04T22:47:22Z | 2018-03-04T23:02:52Z | MEMBER | I guess the common pattern for "coordinate wrappers"/"indexes" looks like: - They are derived from/associated with one or more coordinate variables. - Operations that preserve associated coordinates should also preserve coordinate wrappers. Conversely, operations that drop any associated coordinates should drop coordinate wrappers. - If associated coordinates are subset, coordinate wrappers can be lazily updated (in the worst case from scratch). - Serialization to disk netCDF entails losing coordinate wrappers, which will need to be recreated. - Coordinate wrappers may implement indexing for one or more coordinates. Possible future features for coordinate wrappers: - A protocol for saving metadata to netCDF files to allow them to be automatically recreated when loading a file from disk. - Implementations for other indexing based operations, e.g., resampling or interpolation. I'm open to other names, but my inclination would be to still call all of these |
{
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
} |
302077805 |