Interesting to follow that discussion, thanks. I can see the philosophical arguments not to, though I think rownames are intuitive and nice.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Cedric St-Jean <cedric.stj...@gmail.com> wrote: > DataFrame behavior has been discussed many times, eg. > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/julia-users/8UFnEIfIW0k/QNEustV9BQAJ. > Short answer: having row names is considered, but a bit of a philosophical > difference, so it's not guaranteed to happen at some point. > > On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 7:59:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Borregaard > wrote: >> >> Thanks, it looks like that package will do the trick! >> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Tamas Papp <tkp...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> AFAIK https://github.com/davidavdav/NamedArrays.jl already does this and >>> is maintained actively. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Tamas >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 08 2015, Andreas Lobinger <lobi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Hello colleague, >>> > >>> > in the first order i think this could be emulated by a dictionary >>> mapping >>> > the row name to an index into a matrix or DataFrame. >>> > Afaics calling this a 'misfeature' comes from trying to make a matrix >>> > datatype that has row names by default and many people with >>> > numerics/engineering background reserve the name matrix for the >>> simplest >>> > possible form: rectangular array with single number entries and >>> integer row >>> > and column indexing. >>> > >>> > So what you look for: a rectangular collection accessible with both >>> row and >>> > column index as names is something new and should have different name. >>> You >>> > could browse the dataFrames development and see if there are enough >>> hooks >>> > to extend this. >>> > >>> > Bringing this into julia as package (written in julia) should not be >>> that >>> > complicated if defined clearly (but still, someone is needed to >>> implement). >>> >>> >>
