Add in missing whitespace

Author: reidy-p

hack.py

@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+import pandas as pd
+import pdb
+
+a = pd.RangeIndex(0, 99, step=5)
+b = pd.RangeIndex(200, 100, step=-5)
+
+print(a)
+print(b)
+print(a.union(b, sort=None))
+#pdb.set_trace()
+print(a.union(b, sort=False))
+print(b.union(a, sort=None))
+print(b.union(a, sort=False))
+
+RI = pd.RangeIndex
+a = RI(0, -10, -1)
+b = RI(-10, -20, -1)
+print()
+print(a)
+print(b)
+print(a.union(b, sort=None))
+print(a.union(b, sort=False))
+
+a = RI(0, -10, -1)
+b = RI(-10, -20, -1)
+print()
+print(a)
+print(b)
+print(a.union(b, sort=None))
+print(a.union(b, sort=False))
+
+print()
+print("Same step and end=start")
+a = RI(0, 10, 2)
+b = RI(10, 12, 2)
+print(a._int64index)
+print(b._int64index)
+print(a.union(b, sort=None))
+print(a.union(b, sort=False))
+
+print()
+print("Overlap and same step")
+a = RI(0, 10, 2)
+b = RI(8, 20, 2)
+print(a._int64index)
+print(b._int64index)
+print(a.union(b, sort=None))
+print(a.union(b, sort=False))
+
+print()
+print("Same step but no overlap")
+a = RI(0, 10, 2)
+b = RI(12, 20, 2)
+print(a._int64index)
+print(b._int64index)
+print(a.union(b, sort=None))
+print(a.union(b, sort=False))
+
+# How to not sort this while also return RI?
+a = RI(0, 10, 2)
+b = RI(1, 10, 2)
+print()
+print(a._int64index)
+print(b._int64index)
+print(a.union(b, sort=None))
+print(a.union(b, sort=False))
+
+# How to not sort this while also return RI?
+a = RI(0, 11, 2)
+b = RI(1, 12, 2)
+print()
+print(a._int64index)
+print(b._int64index)
+print(a.union(b, sort=None))
+# pdb.set_trace()
+print(a.union(b, sort=False))
+
+# (RI(0, -10, -1), RI(0, -10, -1), RI(0, -10, -1)), 
+# sorts the result by default. Do we want to try to not sort
+# for sort=False? Could easily be done if we accept Int64Index
+# as a result. But then we will have I64 even in cases when
+# it might be relatively easy to have not sorted. Much harder if 
+# we want RI in all cases
+# We can not sort here while also return a RI? 
+# (RI(0, -10, -1), RI(-10, -20, -1), RI(-19, 1, 1))] 
+
+# When could we actually return a RI?
+# * The steps are equal
+# * The second range starts right after the first range or the second range is within the first range
+
+"""
+expected_notsorted = [RI(0, 10, 1),
+         I64(list(range(5, 20, 1)) + list(range(5))),
+         I64(list(range(10, 20, 1)) + list(range(10))),
+         RI(0, -10, -1),
+         I64(list(range(-10, -20, -1)) + list(range(0, -10, -1))),
+         I64(list(range(1, 10, 2)) + list(range(0, 10, 2))),
+         I64(list(range(1, 12, 2)) + list(range(0, 11, 2))),
+         I64(list(range(-2, 24, 4)) + list(range(0, 21, 4))),
+         I64(list(range(-1, -21, -2)) + list(range(0, -20, -2))),
+         I64(list(range(0, 100, 20)) + [5, 10, 15, 25, 30, 35, 45, 50, 55, 65, 70, 75, 85, 90, 95]),
+         I64(list(range(5, -100, -20)) + [0, -5, -10, -20, -25, -30, -40, -45, -50, -60, -65, -70, -80, -85, -90]),
+         I64(list(range(1, -12, -4)) + [0, -1, -2, -4, -5, -6, -8, -9, -10]),
+         RI(0),
+         RI(0, -10, -2),
+         I64([100] + list(range(0, 100, 2))),
+         I64([-100, 2] + list(range(0, -100, -2))),
+         I64(list(range(0, -50, -3)) + [-1, -2, -4, -5, -7, -8, -10, -11, -13, -14, -16, -17, -19, -20, -22, -23, -25, -26, -28, -29, -31, -32, -34, -35, -37, -38, -40, -41, -43, -44, -46, -47] + list(range(-49, -100, -1))),
+         I64([5, 0]),
+         I64([-5, 0, 5]),
+         I64([4, 0, 1, 2]),
+         RI(0, 10, 1),
+         I64([1, 5, 6])]
+
+for ((idx1, idx2), expected) in zip(inputs, expected_notsorted):
+    res1 = idx2.union(idx1, sort=False)
+    tm.assert_index_equal(res1, expected, exact=True)
+"""
+
+rng_a = pd.date_range('1/1/2012', periods=4, freq='3H')
+rng_b = pd.date_range('1/1/2012', periods=4, freq='4H')
+print(rng_a.union(rng_b, sort=None))
+print(rng_a.union(rng_b, sort=False))

pandas/tests/indexes/test_range.py

@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
 F64 = Float64Index
 OI = Index
 
+
 class TestRangeIndex(Numeric):
     _holder = RangeIndex
     _compat_props = ['shape', 'ndim', 'size']