But then what would be analogous to CROSS APPLY in SQL? > I'd agree with Eduard, although it's probably too late to change behavior > now. Maybe for data.table.2? Eduard's proposal seems more closely > aligned with SQL behavior as well (SELECT/JOIN, then GROUP, but only if > requested). > > S. > >> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:17:59 -0700 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [datatable-help] changing data.table by-without-by >> syntax to require a "by" >> >> I think you're missing the point Michael. Just because it's possible to >> do it >> the way it's done now, doesn't mean that's the best way, as I've tried >> to >> argue in the OP. I don't think you've addressed the issue of unnecessary >> complexity pointed out in OP. >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/changing-data-table-by-without-by-syntax-to-require-a-by-tp4664770p4664990.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 > > _______________________________________________ > datatable-help mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/datatable-help
_______________________________________________ datatable-help mailing list [email protected] https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/datatable-help
