Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improving introspection way for Python functions #4

Open
kozo2 opened this issue Sep 14, 2017 · 4 comments
Open

Improving introspection way for Python functions #4

kozo2 opened this issue Sep 14, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@kozo2
Copy link

kozo2 commented Sep 14, 2017

For now, we have no choice but to use df.__dir__ to check the available pandas methods.

It might be a good idea to retrieve the function names from df.__dir__ and re-define the df class methods with it.

@kozo2
Copy link
Author

kozo2 commented Sep 15, 2017

My idea has changed a bit.
Since the pandas dataframe has a lot of methods, it might be more convenient to introspect it separately from Ruby's method.
And it might be a good idea to rename df.__dir__ to df.pymethod.

@mrkn
Copy link
Owner

mrkn commented Sep 19, 2017

A problem in the idea of the separation is that people need to consider a object is a just Ruby object or a wrapper of Python object.

And, I think pymethods is not good name even if introducing the separation.

@baarkerlounger
Copy link

baarkerlounger commented Oct 17, 2017

Wouldn't it be better to merge the output of df.__dir__ and df.methods and make that the ouput of df.methods?

@mrkn
Copy link
Owner

mrkn commented Oct 19, 2017

@baarkerlounger Thank you for your feedback.

I've reconsidered that it's not bad to merge the output of pyobj.__dir__ into pyobj.methods.
It's because respond_to? has already treated Python methods.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants