Split off list constructor logic from pl.concat_list into pl.list

[cmdlineluser]

Problem description

Discussing #8503 sparked the thought - would it make sense to "rename" pl.concat_list to pl.list?

pl.list is currently marked for deprecation as part of the .arr to .list rename.

DeprecationWarning: `pl.list` is deprecated, 
please use `pl.implode` instead.

Similar to how there is pl.struct and the .struct namespace:

pl.struct(...).struct

If pl.list were repurposed it would be:

pl.list(...).list

[stinodego]

Fully agree. Will add this to the milestones for the next breaking release.

[cmdlineluser]

Hi @stinodego - I just read your comment regarding horizontal sum which made me think of this issue.

After the concat_list/namespace rename

pl.concat_list(pl.col("nums") * 2).arr.sum()

Would become

pl.list(pl.col("nums") * 2).list.sum()

Your comment made me wonder if it would be possible to provide a syntax sugar version:

pl.list.sum(pl.col("nums") * 2)

sugar:

pl.sum("nums")      # vertical
pl.list.sum("nums") # horizontal

no-sugar:

pl.col("nums").sum()
pl.list("nums").list.sum()

[lucazanna]

Quick thoughts on this:

i like the idea of aligning the methods name between structs and lists.
however a pl.list(…).list does not seem very readable to me / clear that it works on rows instead of columns (at least at first)

What about keeping concat_list so we have
concat_list(…).list

And then rename struct to concat_struct so that we have
concat_struct(…).struct

i believe that concat word makes it clearer that we are concatenating multiple rows together

thoughts ?

[stinodego]

I am also a bit on the fence about this. On the Rust side, struct is called as_struct. Maybe that's better; not sure. I'll brood on this for a bit.

[ritchie46]

Yes, I agree that we miss an (I don't know the english name of this, adjective? verb?), but something that says "what" we are going to do with the noun "list".

We already have this on many places. read_csv, to_uppercase. So I think we should do one of those:

• as_list, as_struct
• to_list, to_struct,
• pack_list, pack_struct

But the noun list, struct is not clear as we do not state what we do with those.

[stinodego]

We have a set of functions that take one or more expressions and combines them to generate a new column of a certain datatype. We should rename these to reflect that they are essentially doing the same thing. I have given it a lot of thought and I think the as_ prefix is the most expressive. It would result in the following names:

Before	After
datetime	as_datetime
date	as_date
time	as_time
duration	as_duration
struct	as_struct
concat_list	as_list
concat_str	as_string
format*	format

* Convenience wrapper around concat_str, remains unchanged

I plan to do the following:

1. Refactor to put all these functions into a single module, as well as gather any dedicated tests (DONE)
2. Change behaviour to have the expression named after the datatype
3. Add new function names, deprecate old.

[lucazanna]

hi @stinodego,

Would it make sense to add an ‘as_array’ method?

Same logic as ´as_list’ but with the result being an array

[stinodego]

Yes, it's already up on my whiteboard 😄

[granthamtaylor]

I use pl.concat_list() to concatenate a number of columns together.

With a seemingly small number of assumptions, this operation will always result in a fixed size list.

It would be very convenient to be able to have the resulting concatenation be an array.

[stinodego]

That won't be possible, as concat_list does not always result in lists of the same size. Consider:

import polars as pl

df = pl.DataFrame({"a": [[1, 2], [3], [3, 4]], "b": [1, 2, 3]})
result = df.with_columns(pl.concat_list("a", "b").alias("concat"))

shape: (3, 3)
┌───────────┬─────┬───────────┐
│ a         ┆ b   ┆ concat    │
│ ---       ┆ --- ┆ ---       │
│ list[i64] ┆ i64 ┆ list[i64] │
╞═══════════╪═════╪═══════════╡
│ [1, 2]    ┆ 1   ┆ [1, 2, 1] │
│ [3]       ┆ 2   ┆ [3, 2]    │
│ [3, 4]    ┆ 3   ┆ [3, 4, 3] │
└───────────┴─────┴───────────┘

We will add an as_array function soon enough - for now, you'll have to cast the result of concat_list to an array.

[stinodego]

We have discussed this, and there is a distinction to be made between the functions listed.

There are "constructor" functions:

• datetime
• date
• time
• duration
• struct

Those are fine as-is. Perhaps a prefix like new_ would be more clear (e.g. new_datetime), but there is no great need to change this right now.

Then there are the "concatenate" functions:

• concat_list
• concat_str

These names are clear and we don't want to change them.

The real issue here is that concat_list has extremely strange behavior - it functions both as a 'concatenate' and also as a 'constructor'. The following two code samples have the same result:

pl.select(pl.concat_list(1, 2, 3))
pl.select(pl.concat_list([1], [2], [3]))

shape: (1, 1)
┌───────────┐
│ literal   │
│ ---       │
│ list[i64] │
╞═══════════╡
│ [1, 2, 3] │
└───────────┘

The second one is clearly concatenating the inputs, while the first one is constructing a new list and taking the inputs as elements to that list.

We should add a new pl.list function that acts as a constructor and supports the first behavior. We should become much stricter in the concat_list function and only allow list inputs.

[stinodego]

@reswqa : Supertypes no longer add a List nesting level, see the recent fix by Ritchie:
#16918

So with that, I think this can be implemented and tested properly.

[reswqa]

Great! Let me try to implement the proposal above.

[stinodego]

Now that the supertype issue has been fixed, I no longer think we really need to split up concat_list. The current behavior seems to be:

1. Any non-list types are cast to list
2. All columns are combined at one nesting level is removed.

This is perfectly usable and I don't think splitting up the function is going to really help anyone. It is technically a bit overloaded but that's more of a technicality, in my opinion.

I added some doc examples to clarify this behavior. With that, this can be closed, in my opinion. I will consider re-opening this if I hear some strong arguments for another approach here.

[NickCrews]

I want to argue that we want separate functions for pl.list() and pl.concat_list().

In ibis, we transpile ibis expressions into polars expressions. One of our rules is to turn an ibis.Array into a polars.List:

https://github.com/NickCrews/ibis/blob/1162137c6c702315ab136c55e8cafa0c32b3d422/ibis/backends/polars/compiler.py#L971-L980

1. note how we need separate code paths for empty arrays and non-empty arrays. It would be great if there was one polars function that could handle both.
2. The signature for our transpilation function is supposed to be ibis.Array[T] -> pl.List[T]. And it usually is, except for when T is an array. We have to mark a test as xfail for this case: https://github.com/NickCrews/ibis/blob/1162137c6c702315ab136c55e8cafa0c32b3d422/ibis/backends/tests/test_array.py#L1409-L1436. If polars stays the way it is, in order to make our compilation rule work, I think we need to add some special casing to our transpilation rule, something like

@translate.register(ops.Array)
def array_column(op, **kw):
    cols = [translate(col, **kw) for col in op.exprs]
    if op.dtype.is_array():
        cols = [c.implode() for c in cols]
    return pl.concat_list(cols)

In an effort very similar to this issue, I am trying to overhaul array construction in ibis-project/ibis#9473. The API that I am pushing for there is def array(values: Iterable[Any], *, type: ibis.DataType | str | None = None)
This API has some advantages:

• Since it accepts a single Iterable[Any], instead of the variadic *args: Any version, it can be idempotent, ie ibis.array(ibis.array([1,2])) works. This is a nice property.
• This also makes it have the same API as python's list(values: Iterable[Any]) constructor. Familiar to python users.
• Since it has the dtype optional kwarg-only parameter, it can support empty arrays (without this, we can't infer the dtype of the contained values).

I advocate for polars to create a def list(values: Iterable[Any], *, type: pl.DataType | None = None) or similar API.

[NickCrews]

Just added a workaround for this in ibis: ibis-project/ibis#9484

[stinodego]

Comment by @mcrumiller in the duplicated issue is relevant:
#17307 (comment)

Perhaps there is some merit to splitting the two after all.

[mcrumiller]

If you do decide to go this route, the following seems simple and obvious from a user perspective:

• pl.list() - make a list out of columns, i.e. each column becomes an element. All columns must have a common supertype.
• pl.array() - make an array out of columns. All columns must have a common super dtype.
• pl.concat_lists() - (note addition of the 's' because we are concatenating multiple lists). Take existing pl.List columns and concatenate them. If a column is scalar, wrap it in a list. All columns must have common inner supertype.
• pl.concat_arrays() - Take existing pl.Array columns and concatenate. All columns must have common inner supertype.

[jeroenjanssens]

@mcrumiller, will any of these functions allow us to combine two (or more) list[...] columns into one list[list[...]] column? Currently pl.concat_list() flattens the list[...] columns into one list[...] column.

[m00ngoose]

I agree with @mcrumiller 's suggestions.
@jeroenjanssens yes I think pl.list() would be that function

[NickCrews]

@mcrumiller's API seems good to me. Reiterating that I think they should all accept vals: Iterable[x], not *vals: x, for the reason I say above.

[deanm0000]

@stinodego I just stumbled on this and saw you said you'd make it a milestone but I think that was before you had milestones setup in github so I made it a 2.0.0 milestone.

[corwinjoy]

I have added a draft PR (#19079) to discuss the design of a pl.array function in order to firm up what this would look like and how it should behave. @adamreeve