issue_comments: 539383066
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/3268#issuecomment-539383066 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3268 | 539383066 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUzOTM4MzA2Ng== | 1956032 | 2019-10-08T07:28:07Z | 2019-10-08T07:28:07Z | CONTRIBUTOR | Ok, I get it. Probably the accessor is not the best solution in my case. And yes, an attribute was in fact my first implementation of the add/clean idea. But I was afraid it would be less reliable than the internal list over a long term perspective (but that was before getting in the troubles described above). But why is asking accessor developers to define a copy method an issue ? That wouldn't be mandatory but only required in situations where propagating functional informations could be useful. Sorry if that's a naive question for you guys. |
{
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
} |
485708282 |