From ||one| @end|ng |rom r@tud|o@com  Mon Oct  7 21:11:15 2019
From: ||one| @end|ng |rom r@tud|o@com (Lionel Henry)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 21:11:15 +0200
Subject: [Rd] [External] Re: should base R have a piping operator ?
In-Reply-To: <CAJXgQP0qBoY+4pmfUfoiSTtJ+KNm25k8umyYkL2s8fxu0GH2Tw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEKh8uidcEWA4tzmkpQxpF=q7r93qjf-HtiWLfbT91TFGOSzFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGpovd2jxxWBUxPhMAR6ZPw1+UQzK7BzJVtps10cMBSp=EUdHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALEXWq0ZvGeTbeq-AeYTSTcTwR-TR+gGczqQhWupzB2h0wa+zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGpovd29V3rXSyB_SMBnbKfb3dzAFPF66ck9iU6XPB_+bS+8WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEKh8ugr0FNryRVmM64pBPxjP=4xLrC0T2OsUD27mSASAyHpVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD4oTHHgSUr5TfLaTHxAM94E-Sqw9bW6gON7KdW324VEr524Lw@mail.gmail.com>
 <95648642-FCC6-49BE-93D9-8872172946E6@rstudio.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1910071001350.14507@luke-Latitude-7480>
 <ABABA4EA-88E4-4E22-B256-214050E8720A@rstudio.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1910071052330.14507@luke-Latitude-7480>
 <CAJXgQP0qBoY+4pmfUfoiSTtJ+KNm25k8umyYkL2s8fxu0GH2Tw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <74AC0AE9-4594-40BC-B873-40C6D4DA34A4@rstudio.com>

Hi Kevin,

> On 7 Oct 2019, at 18:42, Kevin Ushey <kevinushey at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> My understanding is that the '.' placeholder is used so that the magrittr pipe can be adapted to functions that aren't endomorphic or otherwise easily pipeable. I would argue that:
> 
> 1. Users could just create their own pipable wrapper functions if so required, or
> 2. Users could use magrittr to get some of the 'extensions' to the pipe operator (with the noted caveats).


Another advantage of the placeholder is that it represents an obvious
binding to inspect while debugging. It would be useful to be able to
inspect all intermediate values in a pipeline by stepping with
sequences of `n` and `.` commands.

Lionel


	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]



[Rd] [External] Re: should base R have a piping operator ?
Lionel Henry