From |uc@r @end|ng |rom |edor@project@org  Tue Jan 12 20:38:38 2021
From: |uc@r @end|ng |rom |edor@project@org (=?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Ucar?=)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:38:38 +0100
Subject: [Rd] [External] brief update on the pipe operator in R-devel
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2101121317310.3211@luke-Latitude-7480>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2012221624270.3391@luke-Latitude-7480>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2101121317310.3211@luke-Latitude-7480>
Message-ID: <CALEXWq13odcpMsW_e+7e_Vvonx0pCmZHM=t6XNKRubhP4bKxGw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 20:23, <luke-tierney at uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
> After some discussions we've settled on a syntax of the form
>
>      mtcars |> subset(cyl == 4) |> d => lm(mpg ~ disp, data = d)
>
> to handle cases where the pipe lhs needs to be passed to an argument
> other than the first of the function called on the rhs. This seems a
> to be a reasonable balance between making these non-standard cases
> easy to see but still easy to write. This is now committed to R-devel.

Interesting. Is the use of "d =>" restricted to pipelines? In other
words, I think that it shouldn't be equivalent to "function(d)", i.e.,
that this:

x <- d => lm(mpg ~ disp, data = d)

shouldn't work.

-- 
I?aki ?car



[Rd] [External] brief update on the pipe operator in R-devel
=?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Ucar?=