Since all three can be indexed the same way, it seems like that should be a minimal annoyance, no?
On Friday, June 6, 2014, John Myles White <johnmyleswh...@gmail.com> wrote: > The thing that annoys me about arrays is that we arguably need to accept > both vectors and 1-row matrices as inputs. > > -- John > > On Jun 6, 2014, at 9:20 AM, Stefan Karpinski <ste...@karpinski.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ste...@karpinski.org');>> wrote: > > See also https://github.com/JuliaStats/DataFrames.jl/issues/585. Using a > tuple may make more sense, but it probably wouldn't hurt to allow an array > as well. > > On Friday, June 6, 2014, John Myles White <johnmyleswh...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','johnmyleswh...@gmail.com');>> wrote: > >> If someone wants to submit a PR to allow adding a tuple as a row to a >> DataFrame, I’ll merge it. >> >> — John >> >> On May 28, 2014, at 7:43 AM, John Myles White <johnmyleswh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> I’m happy with using tuples since that will make it easier to construct >> DataFrames from iterators. >> >> — John >> >> On May 27, 2014, at 11:37 PM, Tomas Lycken <tomas.lyc...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> I like it - but maybe that wasn't so hard to guess I would ;) >> >> // T >> >> On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:11:15 PM UTC+2, Jacques Rioux wrote: >>> >>> Let me add a thought here. I also think that adding a row to a dataframe >>> should be easier. However, I do not think that an array would be the best >>> container to represent a row because array members must all be of the same >>> type which brings up Any as the only options in your example. >>> >>> I think that appending or pushing a tuple with the right types could be >>> made to work. >>> >>> So it would be >>> >>> julia> push!(psispread, (1.0,0.1,:Fake)) >>> >>> or >>> >>> julia> append!(psispread, (1.0,0.1,:Fake)) >>> >>> since >>> >>> julia> typeof((1.0, 0.1, :fake)) >>> (Float64,Float64,Symbol) >>> >>> Note, I am not saying that this works now but that it could be made to >>> work by adding the corresponding method to either function. It seems it is >>> the right construct. >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >> >> >> >
