4 ms·
I'm not sure if this is a joke, be we actually had a serious an idea to replace side:left/right with nulls_left:true and nulls_right:true This part of the join
by aerzen 4y ago
I'm not sure if this is a joke, be we actually had a serious an idea to replace side:left/right with nulls_left:true and nulls_right:true
This part of the join operation should be an after thought - just a flag after the central argument of the transform which should be the condition you join over.
- psychoslave 4y agoI didn’t mean to make a joke here, what was the funny part? Reading it again, maybe the tie:arm/leg sounded too much of a BDSM stuff? Not my initial idea though: I was just looking at short words that might hold the analogy need, from "relationship" you easily come to "tie", and then "arm/leg" for "anterior/posterior" seems pretty straight forward and analogous to "antecedent/(consequent|postcedent|succedent)".
- psychoslave 4y agoI transformed this informal suggestion into an issue, see https://github.com/prql/prql/issues/718 https://github.com/prql/prql/issues/718
- throwaway236324 4y agoHave you considered using "optional"? I feel that this would be a more natural syntax for joins. It could default to "left join", which is probably more frequently used than a right join. from employees join optional positions [id==employee_id] --> LEFT JOIN from employees join positions [id==employee_id] --> JOIN Then you'd use "optional right" or something similar for the "right join" case
- snthpy 4y agoThat is an interesting suggestion. Thank you!