I don't really have any deep issue with `skip_header=True`, besides not really liking having an argument whose type can vary. But that's only a matter of personal taste. And yes, we could always check the type… > > Pierre, for a line "# A B C #1 #2 #3" the user gets six columns 'A', > 'B', 'C', '#1', '#2', '#3', which is messy but what they deserve for > using such messy input :) > >
OK, we're on the same page. > Also, if you look closely, the use of index() > you propose is equivalent to my current code, just more verbose. > > I'm not convinced by line 1353: unless you change it to asbyte(comment).join(first_line.split(comments)[1:]) you gonna lose the '#', aren't you ? With the 'index' way, we just pick the first one, as intended. But it's late and multitasking isn't really working for me now. > Tom, in my branch I rewrote the documentation for the `names` kwarg in > an attempt to be more clear, but I agree a documentation example of the > non-legacy use would go a long way. I've also realized I neglected to > update the documentation for `skip_header`. I'll do these once there is > consensus on the value to use. > > Good. Don't forget to add some unit-tests too. > If there was willingness to tolerate a backwards-incompatible change, > the resulting behaviour would be quite simple and intuitive overall, but > that's out of my hands. > > See, that't the problem here: we can't have any backwards incompatibility, lest we upset users that may not even be on the list. So that's a no-no. Nevertheless, you're raising some interesting cases, and I'm sure a consensus will be found quite soon.
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
