When I try to install r-devel on Windows all I get is this. No other
files. This also occurred yesterday as well.
Directory of C:\Program Files\R\R-test
12/05/2020 08:56 AM .
12/05/2020 08:56 AM ..
12/05/2020 08:56 AM11,503 unins000.dat
12/05/2020 08:5
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 3:00 PM Gabor Grothendieck
wrote:
>
> When I try to install r-devel on Windows all I get is this. No other
> files. This also occurred yesterday as well.
It just tested it to be sure, but it works fine for me. Are you using
the official installer from
https://cran.r-proje
I clicked on the download link at
https://cran.r-project.org/bin/windows/base/rdevel.html
and then opened the downloaded file which starts the installation process.
I specified a new directory that does not exist, R-test, to be sure that
it would not get confused with an old directory.
I repeated
Luke and others,
Can anyone comment on how this new pipe operator will interoperate with
existing pipe methods or packages like the tidyverse that currently do things
using them?
What differences might it make for efficiency? For example, making an anonymous
function just so you can call anoth
On 04/12/2020 9:11 p.m., luke-tier...@uiowa.edu wrote:
On Sat, 5 Dec 2020, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 04/12/2020 2:26 p.m., luke-tier...@uiowa.edu wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020, Dénes Tóth wrote:
On 12/4/20 3:05 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
...
It's tempting to suggest it should allow something li
I'm surprised by the aversion to
mtcars |> nrow
over
mtcars |> nrow()
and I think the decision to disallow the former should be
reconsidered. The pipe operator is only going to be used when the rhs
is a function, so there is no ambiguity with omitting the parentheses.
If it's disallowed, it be
The construct utils::head is not that common but bare functions are
very common and to make it harder to use the common case so that
the uncommon case is slightly easier is not desirable.
Also it is trivial to write this which does work:
mtcars %>% (utils::head)
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 11:59 AM
We went back and forth on this several times. The key advantage of
requiring parentheses is to keep things simple and consistent. Let's
get some experience with that. If experience shows requiring
parentheses creates too many issues then we can add the option of
dropping them later (with special
The :: is a case that we worked to get right with wrapr dot-pipe. I shared
notes on this S3/S4 pipe in the R journal
https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2018/RJ-2018-042/index.html
library(magrittr)
packageVersion("magrittr")
# [1] ‘2.0.1’
5 %>% base::sin
# Error in .::base : unused argument (
> This is a good addition
I can't understand why so many people are calling this a "pipe".
Pipes connect processes, via their I/O streams.
Arguably, a more general interpretation would include sockets and files.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipeline_(Unix)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_pip
If we’re being mathematically pedantic, the “pipe” operator is actually
function composition.
That being said, pipes are a simple and well-known idiom. While being less
than mathematically exact, it seems a reasonable label for the (very
useful) behavior.
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 9:43 PM Abby Spu
It is common practice to call |> as pipe (or pipeline operator) among
many languages
including ones that recently introduced it as an experimental feature.
Pipeline is a
common feature for functional programming, not just for "data pipeline."
F#:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp
Hello,
If Hilbert liked beer, I like "pipe".
More seriously, a new addition like this one is going to cause problems
yet unknown. But it's a good idea to have a pipe operator available. As
someone used to magrittr's data pipelines, I will play with this base
one before making up my mind. I do
13 matches
Mail list logo
