Tibble vs tbl_df about tibble HOT 5 CLOSED

That would mean we'd need to deprecate (and eventually remove) tibble().

What would you think of that @jennybc?

from tibble.

Alternative option: We prominently link to package?tibble from ?tibble from the first paragraph of the "Description" section.

from tibble.

You're making me wonder if I know the difference between tibbles and tbl_df. When I say "a tibble", I think I mean a tbl_df. Am I confused? When you say tbl_df above, do you mean data.frame?

Regardless, I think you're saying it makes sense to use tibble as a place to document tibbles. So the function tibble() needs to get out of the way, i.e. only be known as frame_data(). That seems OK.

This brings up a question and it seems a decent place to ask it:

• To turn sthg into a tibble, are you supposed to use tibble::as_data_frame()? Or dplyr::as.tbl()? Why isn't it tibble::as_tbl_df()? I guess because data_frame() exists? There are a lot of ways to get confused here.

from tibble.

I think of data_frame() and as_data_frame() as parallels of data.frame() and as.data.frame() in the same way that read_csv() is a parallel of read.csv(). But maybe that's too clever?

It would be more consistent to have tibble() as the standard creation method and as_tibble() as the standard coercion method. We should probably keep data_frame() and as_data_frame() but de-emphasise them in the documentation.

from tibble.

This old thread has been automatically locked. If you think you have found something related to this, please open a new issue and link to this old issue if necessary.

from tibble.