From ggrothend|eck @end|ng |rom gm@||@com  Sun Dec  6 21:51:18 2020
From: ggrothend|eck @end|ng |rom gm@||@com (Gabor Grothendieck)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 15:51:18 -0500
Subject: [Rd] New pipe operator
In-Reply-To: <CAP01uRkkd3jOjvaS9JgKYCD1KA83HfzCd+MQSv_2aYJPgcOmSQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e55c2093-0bb5-5f9b-5521-0ca8bdf35953@gmail.com>
 <CALyqOb8c1hHOSaMV+fqXTwpeOsP--KJ_t-oeqMYYafVXeNpqZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <7586e034-e287-0970-6480-f82d747b5445@gmail.com>
 <CADfFDC7bT58_+52uvmpHuMMQRNbbmqV3_7t_fc4sgJ_Esw=xag@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJmOi+PO_8XDC23=rT=pQ76ENL=gx2V-41ax2fHSVs87xURcEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP01uRkkd3jOjvaS9JgKYCD1KA83HfzCd+MQSv_2aYJPgcOmSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP01uRkPcbCBRGwAzKM=W19Ohh-zDGwZH8gM7=A-sK2rRaQxaQ@mail.gmail.com>

I think the real issue here is that functions are supposed to be
first class objects in R
or are supposed to be and |> would break that if if is possible
to write function(x) x + 1 on the RHS but not foo (assuming foo
was defined as that function).

I don't think getting experience with using it can change that
inconsistency which seems serious to me and needs to
be addressed even if it complicates the implementation
since it drives to the heart of what R is.

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 1:08 PM Gabor Grothendieck
<ggrothendieck at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 Hugh Parsonage <hugh.parsonage at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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 becomes inconsistent with other treatments like
> > sapply(mtcars, typeof) where sapply(mtcars, typeof()) would just be
> > noise.  I'm not sure why this decision was taken
> >
> > If the only issue is with the double (and triple) colon operator, then
> > ideally `mtcars |> base::head` should resolve to `base::head(mtcars)`
> > -- in other words, demote the precedence of |>
> >
> > Obviously (looking at the R-Syntax branch) this decision was
> > considered, put into place, then dropped, but I can't see why
> > precisely.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> > Hugh.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 04:07, Deepayan Sarkar <deepayan.sarkar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 7:35 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 04/12/2020 8:13 a.m., Hiroaki Yutani wrote:
> > > > >>   Error: function '::' not supported in RHS call of a pipe
> > > > >
> > > > > To me, this error looks much more friendly than magrittr's error.
> > > > > Some of them got too used to specify functions without (). This
> > > > > is OK until they use `::`, but when they need to use it, it takes
> > > > > hours to figure out why
> > > > >
> > > > > mtcars %>% base::head
> > > > > #> Error in .::base : unused argument (head)
> > > > >
> > > > > won't work but
> > > > >
> > > > > mtcars %>% head
> > > > >
> > > > > works. I think this is a too harsh lesson for ordinary R users to
> > > > > learn `::` is a function. I've been wanting for magrittr to drop the
> > > > > support for a function name without () to avoid this confusion,
> > > > > so I would very much welcome the new pipe operator's behavior.
> > > > > Thank you all the developers who implemented this!
> > > >
> > > > I agree, it's an improvement on the corresponding magrittr error.
> > > >
> > > > I think the semantics of not evaluating the RHS, but treating the pipe
> > > > as purely syntactical is a good decision.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure I like the recommended way to pipe into a particular argument:
> > > >
> > > >    mtcars |> subset(cyl == 4) |> \(d) lm(mpg ~ disp, data = d)
> > > >
> > > > or
> > > >
> > > >    mtcars |> subset(cyl == 4) |> function(d) lm(mpg ~ disp, data = d)
> > > >
> > > > both of which are equivalent to
> > > >
> > > >    mtcars |> subset(cyl == 4) |> (function(d) lm(mpg ~ disp, data = d))()
> > > >
> > > > It's tempting to suggest it should allow something like
> > > >
> > > >    mtcars |> subset(cyl == 4) |> lm(mpg ~ disp, data = .)
> > >
> > > Which is really not that far off from
> > >
> > > mtcars |> subset(cyl == 4) |> \(.) lm(mpg ~ disp, data = .)
> > >
> > > once you get used to it.
> > >
> > > One consequence of the implementation is that it's not clear how
> > > multiple occurrences of the placeholder would be interpreted. With
> > > magrittr,
> > >
> > > sort(runif(10)) %>% ecdf(.)(.)
> > > ## [1] 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
> > >
> > > This is probably what you would expect, if you expect it to work at all, and not
> > >
> > > ecdf(sort(runif(10)))(sort(runif(10)))
> > >
> > > There would be no such ambiguity with anonymous functions
> > >
> > > sort(runif(10)) |> \(.) ecdf(.)(.)
> > >
> > > -Deepayan
> > >
> > > > which would be expanded to something equivalent to the other versions:
> > > > but that makes it quite a bit more complicated.  (Maybe _ or \. should
> > > > be used instead of ., since those are not legal variable names.)
> > > >
> > > > I don't think there should be an attempt to copy magrittr's special
> > > > casing of how . is used in determining whether to also include the
> > > > previous value as first argument.
> > > >
> > > > Duncan Murdoch
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Hiroaki Yutani
> > > > >
> > > > > 2020?12?4?(?) 20:51 Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Just saw this on the R-devel news:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> R now provides a simple native pipe syntax ?|>? as well as a shorthand
> > > > >> notation for creating functions, e.g. ?\(x) x + 1? is parsed as
> > > > >> ?function(x) x + 1?. The pipe implementation as a syntax transformation
> > > > >> was motivated by suggestions from Jim Hester and Lionel Henry. These
> > > > >> features are experimental and may change prior to release.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This is a good addition; by using "|>" instead of "%>%" there should be
> > > > >> a chance to get operator precedence right.  That said, the ?Syntax help
> > > > >> topic hasn't been updated, so I'm not sure where it fits in.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There are some choices that take a little getting used to:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>   > mtcars |> head
> > > > >> Error: The pipe operator requires a function call or an anonymous
> > > > >> function expression as RHS
> > > > >>
> > > > >> (I need to say mtcars |> head() instead.)  This sometimes leads to error
> > > > >> messages that are somewhat confusing:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>   > mtcars |> magrittr::debug_pipe |> head
> > > > >> Error: function '::' not supported in RHS call of a pipe
> > > > >>
> > > > >> but
> > > > >>
> > > > >> mtcars |> magrittr::debug_pipe() |> head()
> > > > >>
> > > > >> works.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Overall, I think this is a great addition, though it's going to be
> > > > >> disruptive for a while.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Duncan Murdoch
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ______________________________________________
> > > > >> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> > > > >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> > > > >
> > > > > ______________________________________________
> > > > > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> > > > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ______________________________________________
> > > > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> > > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________
> > > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
>
>
> --
> Statistics & Software Consulting
> GKX Group, GKX Associates Inc.
> tel: 1-877-GKX-GROUP
> email: ggrothendieck at gmail.com



-- 
Statistics & Software Consulting
GKX Group, GKX Associates Inc.
tel: 1-877-GKX-GROUP
email: ggrothendieck at gmail.com



[Rd] New pipe operator
Gabor Grothendieck