On 09/05/17 11:22, Joris Meys wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Hilmar Berger
> mailto:ber...@mpiib-berlin.mpg.de>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 08/05/17 16:37, Ista Zahn wrote:
>
> One of the key strengths of R is that packages are not akin to
> "fan
> create
> Third, there's a lot of nonstandard evaluation going on in all these
> packages. Using them inside your own functions requires serious attention
> (eg the difference between aes() and aes_() in ggplot2). Actually, even
> though I definitely see the merits of these packages in data analysis, the
>
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Hilmar Berger
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 08/05/17 16:37, Ista Zahn wrote:
>
>> One of the key strengths of R is that packages are not akin to "fan
>> created mods". They are a central and necessary part of the R system.
>>
>> I would tend to disagree here. R packages are
Hi,
On 08/05/17 16:37, Ista Zahn wrote:
One of the key strengths of R is that packages are not akin to "fan
created mods". They are a central and necessary part of the R system.
I would tend to disagree here. R packages are in their majority not
maintained by the core R developers. Concepts, f
> There are tradeoffs. As demonstrated above, the pipe is clearly
> inferior in that it is doing a lot of complicated stuff under the
> hood, and when you try to traceback() through the call stack you have
> to sift through all that complicated stuff. That's a pretty big
> drawback in my opinion.
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Antonin Klima wrote:
> Thanks for the answers,
>
> I’m aware of the ‘.’ option, just wanted to give a very simple example.
>
> But the lapply ‘…' parameter use has eluded me and thanks for enlightening me.
>
> What do you mean by messing up the call stack. As far as
Thanks for the answers,
I’m aware of the ‘.’ option, just wanted to give a very simple example.
But the lapply ‘…' parameter use has eluded me and thanks for enlightening me.
What do you mean by messing up the call stack. As far as I understand it,
piping should translate into same code as dee
Regarding the anonymous-function-in-a-pipeline point one can already
do this which does use brackets but even so it involves fewer
characters than the example shown. Here { . * 2 } is basically a
lambda whose argument is dot. Would this be sufficient?
library(magrittr)
1.5 %>% { . * 2 }
##
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Antonin Klima wrote:
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I am in 2nd year of my PhD in bioinformatics, after taking my Master’s in
> computer science, and have been using R heavily during my PhD. As such, I
> have put together a list of certain features in R that, in my opin
