> > I think that to the extent that they don't want a "real" index (and again, > I also question that decision), printing the row number makes sense, since > that's how you'll access the rows. If I have an array and I select half of > its rows, the new array is still indexed 1:n, so they're following the same > principle. > > It's misleading if you come from an R/python background, but otherwise I > can see that it's got its own consistency. >
Sure. I can see it has some consistency, but it also has limitations. Of course, the solution is to create a real index, but that looks confusing (again, this might be only an issue for people with R and Python background). For example, here the printed index is not very useful: julia> DataFrame(index=1:100, y=2*(1:100))[50:70,:] 21x2 DataFrame | Row | index | y | |-----|-------|-----| | 1 | 50 | 100 | | 2 | 51 | 102 | | 3 | 52 | 104 | | 4 | 53 | 106 | | 5 | 54 | 108 | | 6 | 55 | 110 | | 7 | 56 | 112 | ⋮ | 14 | 63 | 126 | | 15 | 64 | 128 | | 16 | 65 | 130 | | 17 | 66 | 132 | | 18 | 67 | 134 | | 19 | 68 | 136 | | 20 | 69 | 138 | | 21 | 70 | 140 |
