feat: introduce a mergeStatus column when joining frames#158
Open
teto wants to merge 3 commits intoacowley:masterfrom
Open
feat: introduce a mergeStatus column when joining frames#158teto wants to merge 3 commits intoacowley:masterfrom
teto wants to merge 3 commits intoacowley:masterfrom
Conversation
added 3 commits
June 23, 2021 22:56
to mimic pandas mergeStatus column: specifies how the merge was done, leftempty, rightempty, present in both frames etc
Owner
|
Very ambitious! I still do not really understand how the Is the TODO suggesting that you want the user to supply the name of the status column, or that we need to do it? My reading is that a type variable like |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
to mimic pandas mergeStatus column: specifies how the merge was done, leftempty, rightempty, present in both frames etc
WIP: I would like some feedback on the API n case it would be ok to upstream.
Right now I struggle with issues like
Grouping (Record fs) ■ • Expected kind ‘[(GHC.Types.Symbol, *)]’, but ‘fs’ has kind ‘[*]’