From h.wickham at gmail.com  Tue May  9 00:29:09 2017
From: h.wickham at gmail.com (Hadley Wickham)
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 17:29:09 -0500
Subject: [Rd] A few suggestions and perspectives from a PhD student
In-Reply-To: <CA+vqiLG=mDFOiWScr4TCVjkwszXo+38ZTFB4T-7UvqbKzwy+7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FCBC5362-8436-487D-95A0-65CB5924BD29@idi.ntnu.no>
 <CAP01uRk1NzjRjs80hHj3mJ+n1iaESfxj00t88fSkt_wS2pV1rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE0E15A4-5A91-4E00-ABF8-6463635E45D4@idi.ntnu.no>
 <CA+vqiLG=mDFOiWScr4TCVjkwszXo+38ZTFB4T-7UvqbKzwy+7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABdHhvHusDqyGOxp0jd7KeQvYRu1P+NiHtYZVk0Q173CnL6-sA@mail.gmail.com>

> There are tradeoffs. As demonstrated above, the pipe is clearly
> inferior in that it is doing a lot of complicated stuff under the
> hood, and when you try to traceback() through the call stack you have
> to sift through all that complicated stuff. That's a pretty big
> drawback in my opinion.

To be precise, that is a problem with the current implementation of
the pipe. It's not a limitation of the pipe per se.

Hadley

-- 
http://hadley.nz



[Rd] A few suggestions and perspectives from a PhD student
Hadley Wickham