winniewinnie

By "implicit ordering", do you mean "implicitly assumed that the data is ordered a certain way"? Since if that assumption of data being sorted a certain way is broken on some systems and not others, the result might be both non-deterministic (which could be a bug if the result is not allowed to be non-deterministic, but may or may not be a bug regarding the algorithm's assumptions) as well as a bug if the algorithm's assumptions requires it to be sorted a certain way.

> Using algorithms that don't need to upkeep the ordinality requirement in every operation will definitely move the library to a better direction and make future data modeling better and more explicit.

How would the library "make future data modeling ... more explicit" if this is a change to a default, which is implicit?

Wouldn't such people just pass in

  maintain_order=False

?

Have Polars' inconsistent versioning policy caused you any problems?

But Polars does:

https://docs.pola.rs/development/versioning/

> Polars adheres to the semantic versioning specification:

And it does have breaking changes in 2.0. The original asker presumably missed that.

E:

On the other hand, that whole page on versioning seems inconsistent.

Perhaps to get better results on benchmarks.