Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed. Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes. Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch. Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported. You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion. Outdated suggestions cannot be applied. This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved. Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews. Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge. Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
check that dataframe_io_entry_point.name isn't overwriting something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, good point. Probably some other checks could be useful too. So far my goal was more to show what PDEP-9 could imply in terms of code, as I don't understand all the opposition for what in my opinion is a small change with huge benefits. So I guess a MVP implementation can help undertand understand what are the implications to the PDEP. But fully agree we should raise if two installed packages use the same entrypoint name, iirc it's mentioned in the PDEP.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nice!
to be clear, my only opposition to pdep9 was in renaming the hugely established
pd.read_csv(which is also the most visited page in the docs, according to the analytics you sent me)adding an optional plugin system like this which allows third-party authors to develop readers/writers sounds like a net positive
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for clarifying your position @MarcoGorelli.
I think that was great feedback. While it'd be nice to have a better I/O API IMHO, probably not worth the change, and in any case, that can be discussed separately, as it's independent and adds noise to the discussion about plugins.
I was concerned of adding to much stuff to the pandas already huge namespaces, but in a second thought, if we eventually move connectors like SAS or BigQuery to third-party projects, most users will probably end up having less connectors than now, not more.