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

Term 'tbl_df' is used without explanation #765

Closed
maneesha opened this issue Sep 19, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

Term 'tbl_df' is used without explanation #765

maneesha opened this issue Sep 19, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
good first issue Good issue for first-time contributors help wanted Looking for Contributors type:clarification Suggest change for make lesson clearer

Comments

@maneesha
Copy link
Contributor

In the Manipulating data episode it says

You may also have noticed that the output from these calls doesn’t run off the screen anymore. It’s one of the advantages of tbl_df over data frame.

This is the first place the term tbl_df is used in this lesson, and it is not clear that this means tibble.

@Teebusch
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you, @maneesha. This is a really good point. I think we can remove the entire sentence

"You` may also have noticed that the output from these calls doesn’t run off the screen anymore. It’s one of the advantages of tbl_df over data frame."

  • Before we switched from read.csv() to read_csv() the imported data was a data frame. I think now it is a tibble right away, so there never should be any "running off the screen" in the first place.
  • Earlier in the lesson, we say that tibble is a special type of data frame, but the difference doesn't matter for the lesson, so we won't discuss it. I think we can stick with that decision here.
  • I also don't think this comment is particularly useful to the learners.

@Teebusch Teebusch added good first issue Good issue for first-time contributors help wanted Looking for Contributors type:clarification Suggest change for make lesson clearer labels Sep 23, 2021
@tobyhodges
Copy link
Member

Thanks both for contributing to this discussion. The lesson underwent a major update and reorganisation when #887 was merged. As this issue relates to content in a version of the lesson before that update took place, I will close it. Please open a new issue if you believe that some or all of the changes being discussed here remain relevant to the redesigned lesson, linking to this thread where appropriate.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
good first issue Good issue for first-time contributors help wanted Looking for Contributors type:clarification Suggest change for make lesson clearer
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants