Comment by maximilianroos
4 years ago
This is great feedback, and I agree with you re de-prioritizing terseness.
And I agree with you on both the assignments and `split` being a bit awkward. Kusto just uses `by`, WDYT?
4 years ago
This is great feedback, and I agree with you re de-prioritizing terseness.
And I agree with you on both the assignments and `split` being a bit awkward. Kusto just uses `by`, WDYT?
Not the original commenter, but just using `by` makes total sense to me.
I've made this change [1]. Thank you!
[1] https://github.com/max-sixty/prql/commit/dde7fcfc13daaadbdce...
FWIW the separate `group_by()` is one of my greatest design regrets with dplyr — I wish I had made `by` a parameter of `summarise()`, `mutate()`, `filter()` etc.
4 replies →
<3
Group by seems good enough and not changing terms where there isn’t good reason seems like a good goal. Is PRQL’s split the same as SQL’s group by?
Yes Kusto's `by` is excellent!
By actually sounds great to me to, yea. In this case it's short but it's extremely communicative!