You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have checked that this issue has not already been reported.
I have confirmed this bug exists on the latest version of pandas.
I have confirmed this bug exists on the main branch of pandas.
Reproducible Example
NA
Issue Description
Categorical predates general EAs, and is the only EA directly in the pandas namespace. Could we deprecate Categorical as being public and tell users to user Series[cat] or CategoricalIndex instead?
Having it be public makes it modestly harder to make improvements. e.g. #40996 would be easier to implement if it weren't user facing.
union_categoricals is public and operates on Categoricals, which would be weird if Categorical were made private. Maybe something like #51362 making pd.concat behave like union_categoricals would make union_categoricals unnecessary?
On the flip side, Categorical is special, and some of the special-casing of it internally isn't likely to go away. So maybe we just live with it?
Expected Behavior
NA
Installed Versions
Replace this line with the output of pd.show_versions()
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Pandas version checks
I have checked that this issue has not already been reported.
I have confirmed this bug exists on the latest version of pandas.
I have confirmed this bug exists on the main branch of pandas.
Reproducible Example
NA
Issue Description
Categorical predates general EAs, and is the only EA directly in the pandas namespace. Could we deprecate Categorical as being public and tell users to user Series[cat] or CategoricalIndex instead?
Having it be public makes it modestly harder to make improvements. e.g. #40996 would be easier to implement if it weren't user facing.
union_categoricals
is public and operates on Categoricals, which would be weird if Categorical were made private. Maybe something like #51362 making pd.concat behave like union_categoricals would make union_categoricals unnecessary?On the flip side,
Categorical
is special, and some of the special-casing of it internally isn't likely to go away. So maybe we just live with it?Expected Behavior
NA
Installed Versions
Replace this line with the output of pd.show_versions()
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: