Re: [Rd] eval(parse()) within mutate() returning same value for all rows

Thanks Gabor, I like your solution that splits the args into separate columns, in turn making the sprintf() call more interpretable . Cheers. Mateo. -- Mateo Obregón On Friday, 29 December 2023 18:45:06 GMT Gabor Grothendieck wrote: > If the question is how to accomplish this as opposed

Re: [Rd] eval(parse()) within mutate() returning same value for all rows

Cheers. Mateo. -- Mateo Obregón On Friday, 29 December 2023 15:35:20 GMT Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > On 29 December 2023 at 14:13, Mateo Obregón wrote: > | Hi all- > | > | Looking through stackoverflow for R string combining examples, I found the > | following fro

[Rd] eval(parse()) within mutate() returning same value for all rows

als 6 2 %s plus %s equals %s 2,2,4 3 plus 3 equals 6 3 %s plus %s equals %s 3,3,6 3 plus 3 equals 6 The `combined` is not what I was expecting, as the same last eval() is returned for all three rows. Am I missing something? What has changed in the past three years? Mateo. -- Mateo Obregón

Re: [Rd] return (x+1) * 1000

ed from. Mateo. -- Mateo Obregón. On Friday, 20 November 2020 22:52:58 GMT Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On 20/11/2020 5:36 p.m., Mateo Obregón wrote: > > I'm not thinking of complicated cases. > > > > This happened to me in a function that returns 10 minute slots > > > &

Re: [Rd] return (x+1) * 1000

at the R parser did not catch this syntactic error. This is especially poignant when we have to switch between languages like python where the original line would produce the desired result. Mateo. -- Mateo Obregón. On Friday, 20 November 2020 21:58:29 GMT Gabriel Becker wrote: > Hi all,

[Rd] return (x+1) * 1000

value to the point where it was called from. I think this should straightforwardly be handled in the parser by flagging it as a syntactic error. Thoughts? Mateo. -- Mateo Obregón. __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/li