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

Consider renaming Standardize #76

Closed
rofinn opened this issue Oct 10, 2020 · 6 comments · Fixed by #85
Closed

Consider renaming Standardize #76

rofinn opened this issue Oct 10, 2020 · 6 comments · Fixed by #85
Milestone

Comments

@rofinn
Copy link
Member

rofinn commented Oct 10, 2020

Naming things is hard. Standardize, normalize, canonicalize are all really generic terms, so maybe we can think of an appropriate name specific to missings?

#69 (comment)

@rofinn rofinn mentioned this issue Oct 10, 2020
10 tasks
@rofinn rofinn added this to the 0.6 milestone Oct 10, 2020
@nickrobinson251
Copy link
Contributor

possible options with missing in the name:

  • Missingify
  • MakeMissing, UseMissing, AsMissing, ToMissing, SpecifyMissing, DeclareMissing
  • MissingValue / MissingValues

@nickrobinson251
Copy link
Contributor

puns on making things "go missing":

  • Erase, Hide, Remove, Clean, Cleanse, Mask
  • Refine, Rarefy

@nickrobinson251
Copy link
Contributor

Naming things is hard.

@rofinn
Copy link
Member Author

rofinn commented Oct 15, 2020

Could also have a function called stdmis and a type named StandardizeMissings?

@nickrobinson251
Copy link
Contributor

MissingValues((NaN, -9999.0, 0.0)) and DeclareMissing((NaN, -9999.0, 0.0)) both seem better to me

@rofinn
Copy link
Member Author

rofinn commented Oct 15, 2020

I guess declaremissings would kinda fit with allowmissings?

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants