danepitkin commented on PR #33810: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/33810#issuecomment-1400537970
Thanks, Rok! > I would slightly prefer `Table.drop_column(<str or list(str)>)` over `Table.drop_column(<str>)` and `Table.drop(<list(str)>)`. I don't know if `.drop` -> `.drop_column` makes sense at this point. [Pandas uses `.drop` for everything](https://pandas.pydata.org/docs/reference/api/pandas.DataFrame.drop.html) but it does index dropping as well. Perhaps you could just alias the two and introduce a deprecation warning? (e.g. [here](https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/a16c54567ada6729311fd26bdbee4b5e61901410/python/pyarrow/plasma.py#L118)). I like this plan. Also, I think this is what the original issue was requesting and I just misread it! I'll update the ticket with `Table.drop_column(<str or list(str)>)` and mark `Table.drop(<list(str)>)` with a deprecation warning. While Arrow does append the word `_column` to other `Table` modification APIs (e.g. `add_column` in arrow, `add` in pandas), I'd be hesitant to remove `Table.drop()` anytime soon, if ever. Breaking backwards compatibility for minor API UX improvements goes against providing a good UX in general. Just wanted to document my thinking here. Overall, I am aligned with you! -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscr...@arrow.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
