This is an open discussion on the technical structure of bursts, otherwise known as 'groups'.
Currently there is two tier levels for bursts, a multi_burst (column level) and an ind_burst (a row level). This was originally created so we could have more control over each level. If some one wants to change the the grouping categories of a single row, they'd be able to. A lot like how the sfg/sfc structure works. But is this the most parsimonious solution to what we're trying to accomplish
Is it easier to just have a grouping attribute instead that signals the column names used in grouping, like how dplyr::group_by works? My original argument is that our grouping column requires a lot more boundaries around it than what a a group_by column is (i.e It has a naming structure, an active burst, requirements for what class the data are in, etc.). But we could theoretically have checks that continuously checks that these columns adhere to our rules. This might be more complicated, and I'm not sure which option is the most right.
This is an open discussion on the technical structure of bursts, otherwise known as 'groups'.
Currently there is two tier levels for bursts, a multi_burst (column level) and an ind_burst (a row level). This was originally created so we could have more control over each level. If some one wants to change the the grouping categories of a single row, they'd be able to. A lot like how the sfg/sfc structure works. But is this the most parsimonious solution to what we're trying to accomplish
Is it easier to just have a grouping attribute instead that signals the column names used in grouping, like how dplyr::group_by works? My original argument is that our grouping column requires a lot more boundaries around it than what a a group_by column is (i.e It has a naming structure, an active burst, requirements for what class the data are in, etc.). But we could theoretically have checks that continuously checks that these columns adhere to our rules. This might be more complicated, and I'm not sure which option is the most right.