This would be much more efficient for on-the-fly computations, and would help distinguish complete_cases from dropna functionality. isuniquerow? unique(DataTable, cols, view=false)? There's evidence that people have run into the issue of checking columns for duplicates in the past and found it difficult enough to post to SO and other venues about. I think this will be helpful in that it unifies the behavior patterns of iscomplete and isunique and lets us completely start from scratch rather than carry over one of the two different behaviors of complete_cases and complete_cases!. We can use the CASE statement to update multiple columns in a table, even using separate update criteria for each column. SELECT CASE testStatus WHEN 'A' THEN 'Authorized' WHEN 'C' THEN 'Completed' WHEN 'P' THEN 'In Progress' WHEN 'X' THEN 'Cancelled' END AS Status, CASE testStatus WHEN 'A' THEN authTime WHEN 'C' THEN cmplTime … Keeping the current methods, implementing a col-specific version of dropnull!, returning views rather than copies by default from methods that return a DataTable (the user can always copy manually), and changing the names of nonunique and completecases? For more information, see our Privacy Statement. And I have a personal dislike for functions where you cannot do indexin(3, 1:5) but have to do indexin([3], 1:5). Would having an argument (in your example. update publishers set You signed in with another tab or window. they're used to log you in. I imagine users would begin running @assert iscomplete(dt) && isunique(dt) as a nice pre-check when working with new datasets. Thanks. I think we all have our own assumptions about what kind of patterns are common and justifiable, but one justification I could think of for isunique on columns is what if someone wanted to do several outer joins and confirm that they hadn't introduced duplicate columns? boolean vector indicating which rows are the first unique instance of a row. Il controllo passa quindi all'istruzione che segue End Select.Control then passes to the statement following End Select. I imagine people don't usually have duplicate columns, so even though users currently expect unique(dt) to only apply to rows, I think this should be ok? To update multiple columns use the SET clause to specify additional columns. Aliases. I'm also open to using :rows/:cols to indicate dimensions in addition to or instead of 1/2. This repository has been archived by the owner. Then dropnull, dropnull!, na.omit, Is it important for a ethical hacker to know the C language in-depth nowadays? Thank you! You can always update your selection by clicking Cookie Preferences at the bottom of the page. Stack Exchange network consists of 176 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers. (non)uniqueindices would be more explicit, but maybe a bit verbose. We can have multiple case conditions on one line. @mkborregaard Yet that pattern is terribly wasteful since it creates a temporary vector. That's indeed a good question, since completecases clearly has its origins in the R inspiration of DataFrames. However, I would require a third column, or perhaps a fourth as well. WRT returning a view, that makes sense, but we should have a clear policy applying to all functions (e.g. I've seen examples where keyword arguments are typed, like here in CSV.jl. Using complete.cases() to remove (missing) NA and NaN values. How to write an effective developer resume: Advice from a hiring manager, Podcast 290: This computer science degree is brought to you by Big Tech, “Question closed” notifications experiment results and graduation, MAINTENANCE WARNING: Possible downtime early morning Dec 2/4/9 UTC (8:30PM…, {cases} does not work while amsmath package is used, Aligning material of two or more cases environment, Efficient way to align columns in cases environment. Each comparison is tested in turn and the associated value returned if a match is found. What is the use case for isunique(dt, 1 (or 2))? unique columns will be based on values without checking names, as columns cannot share names. I agree that using brackets/passing arrays where they aren't necessary is pretty ugly. Right now, completecases satisfies the first, and the inverse of nonunique, . We use essential cookies to perform essential website functions, e.g. Filtering with multiple conditions in R is accomplished using with filter() function in dplyr package. data: A data frame.... Specification of columns to expand. Alternatively, make up your own array with the alignment you require: The former may not work or be easy in general, but it works in your case. !nonunique, would satisfy the second. Let's comment on the PR for the first part of the proposal. Se testexpression corrisponde a qualsiasi clausola Case expressionlist, le istruzioni che seguono tale istruzione Case vengono eseguite fino alla successiva istruzione Case, Case Elseo End Select.If testexpression matches any Case expressionlist clause, the statements following that Case statement run up to the next Case, Case Else, or End Select statement. All makes very good sense. Learn more, We use analytics cookies to understand how you use our websites so we can make them better, e.g. In this case, lookup with several conditions is the only solution. That wouldn't change the return type as it did for my earlier suggestion, and I think everyone would immediately intuit what completecases(dt, on={Int, Symbol, Vector{Int}, Vector{Symbol}} means that the function is only checking either the individual (bracket free) column or the series of columns in the array. edit: We could also make dim= be the required keyword and @mkborregaard could go forward with his original proposal in the original form. Using only amsmath package, the environement aligned allows you to use as many columns as you want : Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange! Others I have talked to said they would expect the function completecases to return a DataTable, so I think scrapping the name completecases entirely would be beneficial. Out of curiosity, why does using keyword arguments violate type stability? I tried not to make too many assumptions about user patterns when thinking about isunique and iscomplete behavior. Do I have to say Yes to "have you ever used any other name?" If a person is dressed up as non-human, and is killed by someone who sincerely believes the victim was not human, who is responsible?