R is a functional language, hence the pipe operator is not needed.
Also it makes the code unreadable as it is less obvious how a call stack
looks like and what the arguments to the function calls are.
It is relevant for a shell for piping text streams.
If people cannot live without the pipe operator (and I wonder why you
want to add a level of complexity, as it is more obfuscated what the
actual function calls are), please use R's internal one, as it is known
by the parser and hence debugging etc is better integrated.
Best,
Uwe Ligges
On 03.01.2023 17:48, Sorkin, John wrote:
I am trying to understand the reason for existence of the pipe operator, %>%,
and when one should use it. It is my understanding that the operator sends the
file to the left of the operator to the function immediately to the right of the
operator:
c(1:10) %>% mean results in a value of 5.5 which is exactly the same as the
result one obtains using the mean function directly, viz. mean(c(1:10)). What is
the reason for having two syntactically different but semantically identical ways
to call a function? Is one more efficient than the other? Does one use less memory
than the other?
P.S. Please forgive what might seem to be a question with an obvious answer. I
am a programmer dinosaur. I have been programming for more than 50 years. When
I started programming in the 1960s the only pipe one spoke about was a bong.
John
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
