API: rename mode.nan_is_na option to future.distinguish_nan_and_na #63241
+60
−25
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
9 tasks
jorisvandenbossche
requested review from
Dr-Irv,
jbrockmendel,
mroeschke and
rhshadrach
jorisvandenbossche
added
Missing-data
Contributor
|
I'm fine with this name change. |
jbrockmendel
reviewed
Dec 1, 2025
| cf.register_option( | ||
| "distinguish_nan_and_na", | ||
| os.environ.get("PANDAS_FUTURE_DISTINGUISH_NAN_AND_NA", "0") == "1", | ||
| "Whether to treat NaN entries as interchangeable with pd.NA in " |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the description here seems to suggest that "True" means interchangeable, which is misleading
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
other than this, LGTM pending green
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Follow-up on #62040
See #62040 (comment) for some arguments why I think it fits better, but in general: if this option is for migrating to a future change in behaviour (and not to be kept as a choosable mode long term), then a
futureoption fits better.Regarding naming, I would really like to keep the pattern of "enabling" future options by setting them to True. But because of that,
future.nan_is_nawould not work. Tookfuture.distinguish_nan_and_na, but that is quite long, so if someone has a better idea, all ears.