From |uc@r @end|ng |rom |edor@project@org  Sat Oct  5 18:30:25 2019
From: |uc@r @end|ng |rom |edor@project@org (=?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Ucar?=)
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 18:30:25 +0200
Subject: [Rd] should base R have a piping operator ?
In-Reply-To: <CAGpovd2jxxWBUxPhMAR6ZPw1+UQzK7BzJVtps10cMBSp=EUdHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEKh8uidcEWA4tzmkpQxpF=q7r93qjf-HtiWLfbT91TFGOSzFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGpovd2jxxWBUxPhMAR6ZPw1+UQzK7BzJVtps10cMBSp=EUdHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALEXWq0ZvGeTbeq-AeYTSTcTwR-TR+gGczqQhWupzB2h0wa+zg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 17:15, Hugh Marera <hugh.marera at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How is your argument different to, say,  "Should dplyr or data.table be
> part of base R as they are the most popular data science packages and they
> are used by a large number of users?"

Two packages with many features, dozens of functions and under heavy
development to fix bugs, add new features and improve performance, vs.
a single operator with a limited and well-defined functionality, and a
reference implementation that hasn't changed in years (but certainly
hackish in a way that probably could only be improved from R itself).

Can't you really spot the difference?

I?aki



[Rd] should base R have a piping operator ?
=?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Ucar?=