From |uc@r @end|ng |rom |edor@project@org  Sun Oct  6 11:33:57 2019
From: |uc@r @end|ng |rom |edor@project@org (=?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Ucar?=)
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2019 11:33:57 +0200
Subject: [Rd] should base R have a piping operator ?
In-Reply-To: <CAO1zAVZONKgBBcTJVBdZaJpVc6w90QndVsRwsfimVi7UKaDaxw@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>
 <CAO1zAVZONKgBBcTJVBdZaJpVc6w90QndVsRwsfimVi7UKaDaxw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALEXWq0F7UuP72nFFp2f8Y1iO=RjRGzAOBgh1DfpXbiFo-O-AQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 at 10:30, Joris Meys <jorismeys at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm largely with Gabriel Becker on this one: if pipes enter base R, they
> should be a well thought out and integrated part of the language.
>
> I do see merit though in providing a pipe in base R. Reason is mainly that
> right now there's not a single pipe. A pipe function exists in different
> packages, and it's not impossible that at one point piping operators might
> behave slightly different depending on the package you load. So I hope
> someone from RStudio is reading this thread and decides to do the heavy
> lifting for R core. After all, it really is mainly their packages that
> would benefit from it.

Completely agree with Gabriel and Joris.

> I can't think of a non-tidyverse package that's
> easier to use with pipes than without.

I can give you one (disclaimer: it's one of my packages): simmer,
which is specifically designed to work with pipes, and has nothing to
do with the tidyverse.

I?aki



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