Would it be good enough to pass it as a formula? Using your definition of foo
foo(~ A -> result)
## result <- ~A
foo(~ result <- A)
## ~result <- A
On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 4:18 AM Dmitri Popavenko
wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am aware this is a parser issue, but is there any possibilit
Duncan, Adrian and all,
I decided to look a bit at how various operators are seen by typeof() in light
of this discussion and it seems there are quite a few categories as shown below
and I suspect more exist. R, like many languages was not initially designed to
have some object-oriented aspects
Currently download.file() creates and terminates a new TLS connection
for each download. This creates a lot of overhead which is expensive
for both client and server (in particular the TLS handshake). Modern
internet clients (including browsers) re-use connections for many http
requests.
We can do
On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 1:31 PM Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
> You can't change the parser. Changes like `+` <- `-` change the
> function that is called when the expression contains a function call to
> `+`; this happens in `eval()`, not in `parse()`. There are never any
> function calls to `->`, becau
You can't change the parser. Changes like `+` <- `-` change the
function that is called when the expression contains a function call to
`+`; this happens in `eval()`, not in `parse()`. There are never any
function calls to `->`, because the parser outputs a call to `<-` with
the operands reve
That would have been an elegant solution, but it doesn't seem to work:
> `->` <- `+`
> 1 -> 3 # expecting 4
Error in 3 <- 1 : invalid (do_set) left-hand side to assignment
It is possible to reassign other multiple character operators:
> `%%` <- `+`
> 1 %% 3
[1] 4
The assignment operator `->` is
