pdeffebach

I think this is a good proposal. We might not even need `skipmissing` in the meta-language. We can add a `skipmissingsfun` wrapper similar to `passmissing` that wraps all `

I agree with @matthieugomez, especially with upcoming multithreading in `transform` I think it would be very hard to maintain feature parity if the two packages diverged too much. I think...

> proposed as it cannot be handled using the options above when you pass multiple columns in `source => fun => destination`) It can! I wrote a PR for that...

@matthieugomez I was trying to write a post comparing ``` gen y = mean(x) gey y = mean(x) if !missing(x) ``` But I don't have a Stata installation at the...

> sorry: I expect lag([1, missing]) to return [missing, 1]. I think with @nalimilan’s proposal and passmissing = true within a transform call, it would return [missing, missing] That's fine,...

You need ` gdf` above, as transformations are on the group level when given a grouped data frame above. I think we can use `isequal` without addressing `transform` and `select`....

I don't think we are ready to address `transform` and `select` yet. There hasn't been consensus on behavior. better to implement something in Missings.jl [here](https://github.com/JuliaData/Missings.jl/issues/121) and give users a chance...

`where` works with `linq`, but the Lazy pipings all work with `@where` so there hasn't been a conflict.

1. As it's what I've already implemented in DataFramesMeta. But in general i think its good to not re-order things too much, and this is way closer to the mental...

Yeah I have no idea how distributed computing works, or threading for that matter. Still I will put this on the to-do list for winter break / procrastination from school.