On 12/01/2021 3:52 p.m., Bill Dunlap wrote:
'=>' can be defined as a function. E.g., it could be the logical "implies"
function:
> `=>` <- function(x, y) !x | y
> TRUE => FALSE
[1] FALSE
> FALSE => TRUE
[1] TRUE
It might be nice then to have deparse() display it as an in
'=>' can be defined as a function. E.g., it could be the logical "implies"
function:
> `=>` <- function(x, y) !x | y
> TRUE => FALSE
[1] FALSE
> FALSE => TRUE
[1] TRUE
It might be nice then to have deparse() display it as an infix operator
instead of the current prefix:
> d
On 12 January 2021 at 20:38, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
| On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 20:23, wrote:
| >
| > After some discussions we've settled on a syntax of the form
| >
| > mtcars |> subset(cyl == 4) |> d => lm(mpg ~ disp, data = d)
| >
| > to handle cases where the pipe lhs needs to be passed to an
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 20:23, wrote:
>
> After some discussions we've settled on a syntax of the form
>
> mtcars |> subset(cyl == 4) |> d => lm(mpg ~ disp, data = d)
>
> to handle cases where the pipe lhs needs to be passed to an argument
> other than the first of the function called on the r
After some discussions we've settled on a syntax of the form
mtcars |> subset(cyl == 4) |> d => lm(mpg ~ disp, data = d)
to handle cases where the pipe lhs needs to be passed to an argument
other than the first of the function called on the rhs. This seems a
to be a reasonable balance betwee
Sorry, Martin, but I've NOT commented on this matter, unless someone has been
impersonating me.
Someone else?
JN
On 2021-01-11 4:51 a.m., Martin Maechler wrote:
>> Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (SP)
>> on Fri, 8 Jan 2021 13:50:14 + writes:
>
> > Instead of a separate file to sto
