From @nto|ne@|@br| @end|ng |rom gm@||@com  Sat Oct  5 17:48:03 2019
From: @nto|ne@|@br| @end|ng |rom gm@||@com (Ant F)
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 17:48:03 +0200
Subject: [Rd] should base R have a piping operator ?
In-Reply-To: <859F02FC-2DCF-4FFA-A941-1A7285B5F362@win-vector.com>
References: <CAEKh8uidcEWA4tzmkpQxpF=q7r93qjf-HtiWLfbT91TFGOSzFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <859F02FC-2DCF-4FFA-A941-1A7285B5F362@win-vector.com>
Message-ID: <CAEKh8uj_NsmKQcCge1oi0qp3j2AgCV3krMhGiKghmySfKPL=YA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi John,

Thanks, but the Bizzaro pipe comes with many flaws though :
* It's not a single operator
* It has a different precedence
* It cannot be used in a subcall
* The variable assigned to must be on the right
* It doesn't trigger indentation when going to the line
* It creates/overwrite a `.` variable in the worksace.

And it doesn't deal gracefully with some lazy evaluation edge cases such as
:

compose <- function(f, g) { function(x) g(f(x)) }
plus1   <- function(x) x + 1

plus2 <- plus1 %.% compose(.,plus1)
plus2(5)
#> [1] 7

plus1 ->.; compose(.,plus1) -> .; . -> plus2
plus2(5)
#> Error: C stack usage  15923776 is too close to the limit

What I propose on the other hand can always substitute any existing proper
pipe in their standard feature, as long as the dot is made explicit.

Best regards,

Antoine



Le sam. 5 oct. 2019 ? 16:59, John Mount <jmount at win-vector.com> a ?crit :

> Actually, base R already has a pipe fairly close to the one you describe:
> ->.;
>
> iris ->.; head(.) ->.; dim(.)
> # [1] 6 5
>
> I've called it the Bizarro pipe (
> http://www.win-vector.com/blog/2016/12/magrittrs-doppelganger/ ), and for
> some reason we chickened out and didn't spend time on it in the dot pipe
> paper ( https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2018/RJ-2018-042/index.html
>  ).
>
> For documentation Bizarro pipe has the advantage that one can work out how
> it works from the application itself, with out reference to a defining
> function.
>
> On Oct 5, 2019, at 7:34 AM, Ant F <antoine.fabri at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear R-devel,
>
> The most popular piping operator sits in the package `magrittr` and is used
> by a huge amount of users, and imported /reexported by more and more
> packages too.
>
> Many workflows don't even make much sense without pipes nowadays, so the
> examples in the doc will use pipes, as do the README, vignettes etc. I
> believe base R could have a piping operator so packages can use a pipe in
> their code or doc and stay dependency free.
>
> I don't suggest an operator based on complex heuristics, instead I suggest
> a very simple and fast one (>10 times than magrittr in my tests) :
>
> `%.%` <- function (e1, e2) {
>  eval(substitute(e2), envir = list(. = e1), enclos = parent.frame())
> }
>
> iris %.% head(.) %.% dim(.)
> #> [1] 6 5
>
> The difference with magrittr is that the dots must all be explicit (which
> sits with the choice of the name), and that special magrittr features such
> as assignment in place and building functions with `. %>% head() %>% dim()`
> are not supported.
>
> Edge cases are not surprising:
>
> ```
> x <- "a"
> x %.% quote(.)
> #> .
> x %.% substitute(.)
> #> [1] "a"
>
> f1 <- function(y) function() eval(quote(y))
> f2 <- x %.% f1(.)
> f2()
> #> [1] "a"
> ```
>
> Looking forward for your thoughts on this,
>
> Antoine
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
>
> ---------------
> John Mount
> http://www.win-vector.com/
> Our book: Practical Data Science with R
> https://www.manning.com/books/practical-data-science-with-r-second-edition
> <http://www.manning.com/zumel/>
>
>
>
>
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]



[Rd] should base R have a piping operator ?
Ant F