[R] nanoarrow as an interchange class?

Open
#331 6 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Newbie friendliness
25/100
Issue type
Feature
Clarity
Needs clarification
Activity status
Stale
Tech stack
r
Domain
data

Research direction

Review the proposed R entry points as_foo.default, as_foo.nanoarrow_array_stream, and as_nanoarrow_array_stream, along with the existing conversion methods in the project. Determine whether a default S3 method based on nanoarrow is appropriate and document a clear decision and scope for a later nanoarrow version.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

nanoarrow looks very promising for converting between classes that use the Arrow format internally.

For such applications, I imagine that if we define a following default S3 method, we can omit the method definition to each class by defining only the conversion from nanoarrow.

as_foo.default <- function(x) {
  as_foo.nanoarrow_array_stream(as_nanoarrow_array_stream(x))
}

Is this a good idea? (Although of course it may need to be a later version of nanoarrow)

Dominant language
C
Stars
250
Forks
69
Avg merge
2d 16h
Merged PRs (30d)
12

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from apache/arrow-nanoarrow

All issues in apache/arrow-nanoarrow

Similar issues

More C issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.