Just pointing out that if you do not want to SEE an error message that is
otherwise harmless, one option in R is to let the error happen but arrange
to deal with it in some way including just suppressing the message.
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023, 5:27 AM Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
> On 02/10/2023 10:17 p.m.,
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
Naming is another whole topic.
I have seen suggestions that the current pipeline symbol used be phrased as
THEN so
data %>% f1 %>% f2()
would be said as something like:
take data then apply f1 then f2
or some variants.
There are words other than pipe or pipeline that might also work such as
Topic is more about anonymous functions but also pipes.
Rui thought the proposed syntax was a bit ugly. I assume the \(x) ... was what
he means, not the function(x)... version.
Many current languages have played games on adding some form of anonymous
function that is defined and used in place.
As someone who switches back and forth between using standard R methods and
those of the tidyverse, depending on the problem, my mood and whether Jupiter
aligns with Saturn in the new age of Aquarius, I have a question about the
forthcoming built-in pipe. Will it motivate anyone to eventually ch
so no
other args need to be adjusted by position.
But all this is academic and I concede will likely not be done. I can live with
the plus signs.
-Original Message-
From: Duncan Murdoch
Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2020 2:50 PM
To: Avi Gross ; 'r-devel'
Subject: Re: [Rd] New pi
It has been very enlightening watching the discussion not only about the
existing and proposed variations of a data "pipe" operator in R but also
cognates in many other languages.
So I am throwing out a QUESTION that just asks if the pipeline as done is
pretty much what could also be done without
Question: is the part that Ed Merkle is asking about the change in the
expected NAME associated with the output?
He changed a sort of global parameter affecting how many digits he wants any
compliant function to display. So when he asked for a named vector, the
chosen name was based on his request
hours or days so why fight it to find a subtle bug
in something I could not change. Your question is valid but my guess is few
use it in a way that will get much notice.
From: Ed Merkle
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 11:33 AM
To: Avi Gross ; r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] quanti
Antoine,
Have you considered converting the non-list to a list explicitly so this
does not matter?
For a long time, few people used lists in this context, albeit in the
tidyverse it is now better supported and probably more common.
This is an area many have found annoying when you have implicit
Gabor,
Although it might be nice if all imagined cases worked, there are many ways to
work around and get the results you want.
You may want to consider that it is easier to recognize the symbol you use (x
in the examples) if it is alone and used only exactly once and it the list of
function
Just to be different, the premise was that you do not know how many dimensions
the array had. But that is easily available using dim() including how many
items are in each dimension. So, in principle, you can use a normal indexing
method perhaps in a loop to get what you want. Not sexy but doabl
Arguably, R was not developed to satisfy some needs in the way intended.
When I have had to work with datasets from some of the social sciences I have
had to adapt to subtleties in how they did things with software like SPSS in
which an NA was done using an out of bounds marker like 999 or "." o
for garbage collection. When and IF you ever need that info at some
later date, the form you chose can be read back in. But you need to be careful
as such meta-info is lost unless you use a method that conserves it. Do not
save it as a CSV file, for example, but as something R uses and can read back
in
ake it doable in the above example.
From: Adrian Dușa mailto:dusa.adr...@unibuc.ro> >
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 8:18 AM
To: Greg Minshall mailto:minsh...@umich.edu> >
Cc: Avi Gross mailto:avigr...@verizon.net> >; r-devel
mailto:r-devel@r-project.org> >
Subject: Re: [
I was thinking about how one does things in a language that is properly
object-oriented versus R that makes various half-assed attempts at being such.
Clearly in some such languages you can make an object that is a wrapper that
allows you to save an item that is the main payload as well as anyth
approaches may tempt them to try
something and maybe later do more and more and move over.
From: Adrian Dușa
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 2:17 AM
To: Avi Gross
Cc: r-devel
Subject: Re: [Rd] [External] Re: 1954 from NA
Dear Avi,
Thank you so much for the extended messages, I read them
converting a copy to a factor, that may mess things up. If it has already been
done and people have experience, great. If not, good luck.
-Original Message-
From: Gregory Warnes
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 9:13 PM
To: Avi Gross
Cc: r-devel
Subject: Re: [Rd] [External] Re: 1954 from NA
Does anyone have a case where this construct has a valid use?
Didn't Python add a := operator recently that might be intended more for
such uses as compared to using the standard assignment operators? I wonder
if that has explicit guarantees of what happens in such cases, but that is
outside wha
n multiple
processors and even multiple machines across the world. Darned if I know what
issues would come up on quantum computers which have yet other aspects of the
concept of parallelism.
-Original Message-
From: Gabor Grothendieck
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 1:58 PM
To: Avi Gross
C
R wobbles a bit as there is no normal datatype that is a singleton variable.
Saying x <- 5 just creates a vector of current length 1. It is perfectly legal
to then write x [2] <- 6 and so on. The vector lengthens. You can truncate it
back to 1, if you wish: length(x) <- 1
So the question here
Grant,
One nit to consider is that the default behavior of pasteo() to include a space
as a separator would not be a perfect choice for the usual meaning of plus.
I would prefer a+b to be "helloworld" in your example and to get what you say
would be
a + " " + b
Which I assume would put in a
After seeing what others are saying, it is clear that you need to carefully
think things out before designing any implementation of a more native
concatenation operator whether it is called "+' or anything else. There may
not be any ONE right solution but unlike a function version like paste()
ther
ave pointed out, any kind of behavior one wants from string
concatenation can be implemented by custom operators as needed. This is not
something that needs to be in the base R. I would rather like the efforts to be
directed on improving string formatting (such as glue-style built-in string
inter
Excellent reason, Duncan. R does not have an unlimited integer type as in
Python so truncating or rounding activities can well produce a result that
would be out of bounds.
If someone really wants an array of integers, other than efficiency reasons,
they could process the output from something lik
Let me be clear up front that I do not want to start any major discussions,
merely to share some observations.
We discussed at length what it would mean if R was extended to allow a plus
sign to concatenate text when the operands were both of the right types that
made sense for the purpose so t
JC,
Are you going to call this new abbreviated language by the name "Q" or keep
calling itby the name "R" as "S" is taken?
As a goal, yes, it is easier to maintain a language that is sparse. It may sort
of force programmers to go in particular ways to do things and those ways could
be very relia
27 matches
Mail list logo
