Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 20 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
fromnumeric.py compatibility with GroupBy, Window, and tslib functions #12811
Comments
gfyoung
referenced
this issue
Apr 6, 2016
Closed
COMPAT: Expand compatibility with fromnumeric.py #12810
jreback
added the
Compat
label
Apr 6, 2016
jreback
added this to the
0.18.1
milestone
Apr 6, 2016
|
@jreback : Adding timestamps and timedeltas as well to this issue given my question about |
jreback
modified the milestone: 0.18.2, 0.18.1
Apr 27, 2016
|
With my initial
|
gfyoung
changed the title from
fromnumeric.py compatibility with GroupBy and Window functions to fromnumeric.py compatibility with GroupBy, Window, and tslib functions
May 7, 2016
|
how so, I don't really care to be compat with numpy for anything beyond very basic stuff. pls show an example. |
|
Examples:
All I was thinking of doing was putting validation calls in the implementation, similar to what was done in my previous PR and nothing more than that. I'm also perfectly fine leaving them as is since |
|
|
ok that doesn't seem unreasonable |
gfyoung
referenced
this issue
May 12, 2016
Closed
COMPAT: Further Expand Compatibility with fromnumeric.py #13148
|
Do we actually want something like |
|
@jorisvandenbossche : I'll leave that for you to debate with @jreback . To reiterate, I am perfectly fine either way. This is not as serious a compatibility issue as the previous one I raised in #12644. |
gfyoung
added a commit
to gfyoung/pandas
that referenced
this issue
May 19, 2016
|
|
gfyoung |
eb4762c
|
jreback
closed this
in fecb2ca
May 20, 2016
nps
added a commit
to nps/pandas
that referenced
this issue
May 30, 2016
|
|
gfyoung + nps |
cee5388
|
gfyoung commentedApr 6, 2016
In #12810, it was decided that compatibility for
groupby(includingresample.py) andwindowfunctions would be left for a separate PR / discussion, which seems reasonable given how massive #12810 already is. This issue serves a reminder to tackle this after landing #12810, as it seems like this can be easily addressed afterwards.