issue_comments: 524570522
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/525#issuecomment-524570522 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/525 | 524570522 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUyNDU3MDUyMg== | 3460034 | 2019-08-24T18:12:55Z | 2019-08-24T18:39:49Z | CONTRIBUTOR | @shoyer I agree, the accessor interface makes a lot of sense for this: it's more conservative on the xarray side, while also giving the most flexibility for the pint + xarray integration. Based on your feedback and what I'd hope to see out of the pint + xarray integration, I'm thinking a pint-adjacent package like pint-xarray may be the best route forward. ~~I'll create an issue on pint to inquire about that possibility.~~ See https://github.com/hgrecco/pint/issues/849. |
{
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
} |
100295585 |