You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It seems to be a common request to be able to identify the matched observation or the source, is flag a good name ?
flag would be a character vector of length 1 to 3 containing either :
length 1 : The name of a boolean column that would be TRUE for matched observation
length 2 : The names of columns containing TRUE when the observation was matched respectively in .x or .y
length 3 : The latter + the former
flag would be NULL by default
Implementation wise we mutate some columns on each side, named as the first 2 elements of flag, or unique temp names from the unique flag element, then join, fill with FALSE, and combine accordingly.
Common use case would probably be :
left_join(x, y, flag ="matched")
left_join(
x,
y |> select_keys_and(),
flag ="matched"
)
In the latter case select_keys_and() is a bit awkwar, it is worth having select_keys() which would do the same but be more limited in scope and look better ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It seems to be a common request to be able to identify the matched observation or the source, is
flag
a good name ?flag
would be a character vector of length 1 to 3 containing either :TRUE
for matched observationTRUE
when the observation was matched respectively in.x
or.y
flag
would beNULL
by defaultImplementation wise we mutate some columns on each side, named as the first 2 elements of
flag
, or unique temp names from the uniqueflag
element, then join, fill with FALSE, and combine accordingly.Common use case would probably be :
In the latter case
select_keys_and()
is a bit awkwar, it is worth havingselect_keys()
which would do the same but be more limited in scope and look better ?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: