From |uc@r @end|ng |rom |edor@project@org  Sat Oct  5 18:45:44 2019
From: |uc@r @end|ng |rom |edor@project@org (=?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Ucar?=)
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 18:45:44 +0200
Subject: [Rd] should base R have a piping operator ?
In-Reply-To: <ce629286-825e-0315-4570-28c1c57dbfc0@sapo.pt>
References: <CAEKh8uidcEWA4tzmkpQxpF=q7r93qjf-HtiWLfbT91TFGOSzFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <859F02FC-2DCF-4FFA-A941-1A7285B5F362@win-vector.com>
 <CAEKh8uj_NsmKQcCge1oi0qp3j2AgCV3krMhGiKghmySfKPL=YA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ce629286-825e-0315-4570-28c1c57dbfc0@sapo.pt>
Message-ID: <CALEXWq3UPJ7D4hj8A2z6HeByo56xq39H3EPAe2m1HFgs8cdo=A@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 18:10, Rui Barradas <ruipbarradas at sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> R is a functional language, pipes are not.

How would you classify them? Pipes are analogous to function
composition. In that sense, they are more functional than classes, and
R does have classes.

Anyway, I don't see "purity" as a valid argument either in favour or
against any given feature. Language classification may be useful for
theorists, but certainly not for practitioners.

I?aki



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