Thank, Matthew, .() is a good idea, it is more intuitive than J() (why join?) or list () . I am not so sure about the ..(). It's certainly intuitive, but thinking about how to explain that feature to students is a nightmare.
Probably a feature such as you find it in plyr::join would be good: It print a text ยด"joining by: id' that reminds you that you better tell explicitly what "by" is. So in my case: since there is a ambiguity in "channel", a warning should be printed, with a recommendation to use ..() or .(). Eats performance, though, but probably only for small problem which anyway are irrelevant. Dieter -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/J-channel-J-chan-give-different-results-when-chan-channel-tp4648911p4649008.html Sent from the datatable-help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ datatable-help mailing list [email protected] https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/datatable-help
