R devel - Oct 2019 - [External] Re: should base R have a piping operator ?

Hi Gabe,
> There is another way the pipe could go into base R that could not be
> done in package space and has the potential to mitigate some pretty
> serious downsides to the pipes relating to debugging
I assume you're thinking about the large stack trace of the magrittr
pipe? You don't need a parser transformation to solve this problem
though, the pipe could be implemented as a regular function with a
very limited impact on the stack. And if implemented as a SPECIALSXP,
it would be completely invisible. We've been planning to rewrite %>%
to fix the performance and the stack print, it's just low priority.

About the semantics of local evaluation that were proposed in this
thread, I think that wouldn't be right. A native pipe should be
consistent with other control flow constructs like `if` and `for` and
evaluate in the current environment. In that case, the `.` binding, if
any, would be restored to its original value in `on.exit()` (or through
unwind-protection if implemented in C).

Best,
Lionel

> On 6 Oct 2019, at 01:50, Gabriel Becker <gabembecker at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I think there's some nuance here that makes makes me agree partially
with
> each "side".
> 
> The pipe is inarguably extremely popular. Many probably think of it as a
> core feature of R, along with the tidyverse that (as was pointed out)
> largely surrounds it and drives its popularity. Whether its a good or bad
> thing that they think that doesn't change the fact that by my
estimation
> that Ant is correct that they do. BUT, I don't agree with him that
that, by
> itself, is a reason to put it in base R in the form that it exists now. For
> the current form, there aren't really any major downsides that I see to
> having people just use the package version.
> 
> Sure it may be a little weird, but it doesn't ever really stop the
> people from using it or present a significant barrier. Another major point
> is that many (most?) base R functions are not necessarily tooled to be
> endomorphic, which in my personal opinion is *largely* the only place that
> the pipes are really compelling.
> 
> That was for pipes as the exist in package space, though. There is another
> way the pipe could go into base R that could not be done in package space
> and has the potential to mitigate some pretty serious downsides to the
> pipes relating to debugging, which would be to implement them in the
parser.
> 
> If
> 
> iris %>% group_by(Species) %>% summarize(mean_sl =
mean(Sepal.Length)) %>%
> filter(mean_sl > 5)
> 
> 
> were *parsed* as, for example, into
> 
> local({
>            . = group_by(iris, Species)
> 
>            ._tmp2 = summarize(., mean_sl = mean(Sepal.Length))
> 
>            filter(., mean_sl > 5)
>       })
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then debuggiing (once you knew that) would be much easier but behavaior
> would be the same as it is now. There could even be some sort of
> step-through-pipe debugger at that point added as well for additional
> convenience.
> 
> There is some minor precedent for that type of transformative parsing:
> 
>> expr = parse(text = "5 -> x")
> 
>> expr
> 
> expression(5 -> x)
> 
>> expr[[1]]
> 
> x <- 5
> 
> 
> Though thats a much more minor transformation.
> 
> All of that said, I believe Jim Hester (cc'ed) suggested something
along
> these lines at the RSummit a couple of years ago, and thus far R-core has
> not shown much appetite for changing things in the parser.
> 
> Without that changing, I'd have to say that my vote, for whatever its
> worth, comes down on the side of pipes being fine in packages. A summary of
> my reasoning being that it only makes sense for them to go into R itself if
> doing so fixes an issue that cna't be fixed with them in package space.
> 
> Best,
> ~G
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 5:26 AM Ant F <antoine.fabri at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
>> Yes but this exageration precisely misses the point.
>> 
>> Concerning your examples:
>> 
>> * I love fread but I think it makes a lot of subjective choices that
are
>> best associated with a package. I think it
>> changed a lot with time and can still change, and we have great
developers
>> willing to maintain it and be reactive
>> regarding feature requests or bug reports
>> 
>> *.group_by() adds a class that works only (or mostly) with tidyverse
verbs,
>> that's very easy to dismiss it as an inclusion in base R.
>> 
>> * summarize is an alternative to aggregate, that would be very
confusing to
>> have both
>> 
>> Now to be fair to your argument we could think of other functions such
as
>> data.table::rleid() which I believe base R misses deeply,
>> and there is nothing wrong with packaged functions making their way to
base
>> R.
>> 
>> Maybe there's an existing list of criteria for inclusion, in base R
but if
>> not I can make one up for the sake of this discussion :) :
>> * 1) the functionality should not already exist
>> * 2) the function should be general enough
>> * 3) the function should have a large amount of potential of users
>> * 4) the function should be robust, and not require extensive
maintenance
>> * 5) the function should be stable, we shouldn't expect new
features ever 2
>> months
>> * 6) the function should have an intuitive interface in the context of
the
>> rest ot base R
>> 
>> I guess 1 and 6 could be held against my proposal, because :
>> (1) everything can be done without pipes
>> (6) They are somewhat surprising (though with explicit dots not that
much,
>> and not more surprising than say `bquote()`)
>> 
>> In my opinion the + offset the -.
>> 
>> I wouldn't advise taking magrittr's pipe (providing the license
allows so)
>> for instance, because it makes a lot of design choices and has a
complex
>> behavior, what I propose is 2 lines of code very unlikely to evolve or
>> require maintenance.
>> 
>> Antoine
>> 
>> PS: I just receive the digest once a day so If you don't
"reply all" I can
>> only react later.
>> 
>> Le sam. 5 oct. 2019 ? 19:54, Hugh Marera <hugh.marera at
gmail.com> a ?crit :
>> 
>>> I exaggerated the comparison for effect. However, it is not very
>> difficult
>>> to find functions in dplyr or data.table or indeed other packages
that
>> one
>>> may wish to be in base R. Examples, for me, could include
>>> data.table::fread, dplyr::group_by & dplyr::summari[sZ]e combo,
etc.
>> Also,
>>> the "popularity" of magrittr::`%>%` is mostly
attributable to the
>> tidyverse
>>> (an advanced superset of R). Many R users don't even know that
they are
>>> installing the magrittr package.
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 6:30 PM I?aki Ucar <iucar at
fedoraproject.org>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 17:15, Hugh Marera <hugh.marera at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> How is your argument different to, say,  "Should dplyr
or data.table
>> be
>>>>> part of base R as they are the most popular data science
packages and
>>>> they
>>>>> are used by a large number of users?"
>>>> 
>>>> Two packages with many features, dozens of functions and under
heavy
>>>> development to fix bugs, add new features and improve
performance, vs.
>>>> a single operator with a limited and well-defined
functionality, and a
>>>> reference implementation that hasn't changed in years (but
certainly
>>>> hackish in a way that probably could only be improved from R
itself).
>>>> 
>>>> Can't you really spot the difference?
>>>> 
>>>> I?aki
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>> 
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>> 
> 
> 	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

On 07/10/2019 4:22 a.m., Lionel Henry wrote:
> Hi Gabe,
> 
>> There is another way the pipe could go into base R that could not be
>> done in package space and has the potential to mitigate some pretty
>> serious downsides to the pipes relating to debugging
> 
> I assume you're thinking about the large stack trace of the magrittr
> pipe? You don't need a parser transformation to solve this problem
> though, the pipe could be implemented as a regular function with a
> very limited impact on the stack. And if implemented as a SPECIALSXP,
> it would be completely invisible. We've been planning to rewrite %>%
> to fix the performance and the stack print, it's just low priority.
I don't know what Gabe had in mind, but the downside to pipes that I see 
is that they are single statements.  I'd like the debugger to be able to 
single step through one stage at a time.  I'd like to be able to set a 
breakpoint on line 3 in

   a %>%
   b %>%
   c %>%
   d

and be able to examine the intermediate result of evaluating b before 
piping it into c.  (Or maybe that's off by one:  maybe I'd prefer to 
examine the inputs to d if I put a breakpoint there.  I'd have to try it 
to find out which feels more natural.)

> About the semantics of local evaluation that were proposed in this
> thread, I think that wouldn't be right. A native pipe should be
> consistent with other control flow constructs like `if` and `for` and
> evaluate in the current environment. In that case, the `.` binding, if
> any, would be restored to its original value in `on.exit()` (or through
> unwind-protection if implemented in C).
That makes sense.

Duncan Murdoch
> 
> Best,
> Lionel
> 
> 
>> On 6 Oct 2019, at 01:50, Gabriel Becker <gabembecker at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I think there's some nuance here that makes makes me agree
partially with
>> each "side".
>>
>> The pipe is inarguably extremely popular. Many probably think of it as
a
>> core feature of R, along with the tidyverse that (as was pointed out)
>> largely surrounds it and drives its popularity. Whether its a good or
bad
>> thing that they think that doesn't change the fact that by my
estimation
>> that Ant is correct that they do. BUT, I don't agree with him that
that, by
>> itself, is a reason to put it in base R in the form that it exists now.
For
>> the current form, there aren't really any major downsides that I
see to
>> having people just use the package version.
>>
>> Sure it may be a little weird, but it doesn't ever really stop the
>> people from using it or present a significant barrier. Another major
point
>> is that many (most?) base R functions are not necessarily tooled to be
>> endomorphic, which in my personal opinion is *largely* the only place
that
>> the pipes are really compelling.
>>
>> That was for pipes as the exist in package space, though. There is
another
>> way the pipe could go into base R that could not be done in package
space
>> and has the potential to mitigate some pretty serious downsides to the
>> pipes relating to debugging, which would be to implement them in the
parser.
>>
>> If
>>
>> iris %>% group_by(Species) %>% summarize(mean_sl =
mean(Sepal.Length)) %>%
>> filter(mean_sl > 5)
>>
>>
>> were *parsed* as, for example, into
>>
>> local({
>>             . = group_by(iris, Species)
>>
>>             ._tmp2 = summarize(., mean_sl = mean(Sepal.Length))
>>
>>             filter(., mean_sl > 5)
>>        })
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Then debuggiing (once you knew that) would be much easier but behavaior
>> would be the same as it is now. There could even be some sort of
>> step-through-pipe debugger at that point added as well for additional
>> convenience.
>>
>> There is some minor precedent for that type of transformative parsing:
>>
>>> expr = parse(text = "5 -> x")
>>
>>> expr
>>
>> expression(5 -> x)
>>
>>> expr[[1]]
>>
>> x <- 5
>>
>>
>> Though thats a much more minor transformation.
>>
>> All of that said, I believe Jim Hester (cc'ed) suggested something
along
>> these lines at the RSummit a couple of years ago, and thus far R-core
has
>> not shown much appetite for changing things in the parser.
>>
>> Without that changing, I'd have to say that my vote, for whatever
its
>> worth, comes down on the side of pipes being fine in packages. A
summary of
>> my reasoning being that it only makes sense for them to go into R
itself if
>> doing so fixes an issue that cna't be fixed with them in package
space.
>>
>> Best,
>> ~G
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 5:26 AM Ant F <antoine.fabri at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>>> Yes but this exageration precisely misses the point.
>>>
>>> Concerning your examples:
>>>
>>> * I love fread but I think it makes a lot of subjective choices
that are
>>> best associated with a package. I think it
>>> changed a lot with time and can still change, and we have great
developers
>>> willing to maintain it and be reactive
>>> regarding feature requests or bug reports
>>>
>>> *.group_by() adds a class that works only (or mostly) with
tidyverse verbs,
>>> that's very easy to dismiss it as an inclusion in base R.
>>>
>>> * summarize is an alternative to aggregate, that would be very
confusing to
>>> have both
>>>
>>> Now to be fair to your argument we could think of other functions
such as
>>> data.table::rleid() which I believe base R misses deeply,
>>> and there is nothing wrong with packaged functions making their way
to base
>>> R.
>>>
>>> Maybe there's an existing list of criteria for inclusion, in
base R but if
>>> not I can make one up for the sake of this discussion :) :
>>> * 1) the functionality should not already exist
>>> * 2) the function should be general enough
>>> * 3) the function should have a large amount of potential of users
>>> * 4) the function should be robust, and not require extensive
maintenance
>>> * 5) the function should be stable, we shouldn't expect new
features ever 2
>>> months
>>> * 6) the function should have an intuitive interface in the context
of the
>>> rest ot base R
>>>
>>> I guess 1 and 6 could be held against my proposal, because :
>>> (1) everything can be done without pipes
>>> (6) They are somewhat surprising (though with explicit dots not
that much,
>>> and not more surprising than say `bquote()`)
>>>
>>> In my opinion the + offset the -.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't advise taking magrittr's pipe (providing the
license allows so)
>>> for instance, because it makes a lot of design choices and has a
complex
>>> behavior, what I propose is 2 lines of code very unlikely to evolve
or
>>> require maintenance.
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>> PS: I just receive the digest once a day so If you don't
"reply all" I can
>>> only react later.
>>>
>>> Le sam. 5 oct. 2019 ? 19:54, Hugh Marera <hugh.marera at
gmail.com> a ?crit :
>>>
>>>> I exaggerated the comparison for effect. However, it is not
very
>>> difficult
>>>> to find functions in dplyr or data.table or indeed other
packages that
>>> one
>>>> may wish to be in base R. Examples, for me, could include
>>>> data.table::fread, dplyr::group_by & dplyr::summari[sZ]e
combo, etc.
>>> Also,
>>>> the "popularity" of magrittr::`%>%` is mostly
attributable to the
>>> tidyverse
>>>> (an advanced superset of R). Many R users don't even know
that they are
>>>> installing the magrittr package.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 6:30 PM I?aki Ucar <iucar at
fedoraproject.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 17:15, Hugh Marera <hugh.marera at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How is your argument different to, say,  "Should
dplyr or data.table
>>> be
>>>>>> part of base R as they are the most popular data
science packages and
>>>>> they
>>>>>> are used by a large number of users?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Two packages with many features, dozens of functions and
under heavy
>>>>> development to fix bugs, add new features and improve
performance, vs.
>>>>> a single operator with a limited and well-defined
functionality, and a
>>>>> reference implementation that hasn't changed in years
(but certainly
>>>>> hackish in a way that probably could only be improved from
R itself).
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't you really spot the difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> I?aki
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>>
>>
>> 	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> 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
>

> 
> On 7 Oct 2019, at 13:47, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
> On 07/10/2019 4:22 a.m., Lionel Henry wrote:
>> Hi Gabe,
>>> There is another way the pipe could go into base R that could not
be
>>> done in package space and has the potential to mitigate some pretty
>>> serious downsides to the pipes relating to debugging
>> I assume you're thinking about the large stack trace of the
magrittr
>> pipe? You don't need a parser transformation to solve this problem
>> though, the pipe could be implemented as a regular function with a
>> very limited impact on the stack. And if implemented as a SPECIALSXP,
>> it would be completely invisible. We've been planning to rewrite
%>%
>> to fix the performance and the stack print, it's just low priority.
> 
> I don't know what Gabe had in mind, but the downside to pipes that I
see is that they are single statements.  I'd like the debugger to be able to
single step through one stage at a time.  I'd like to be able to set a
breakpoint on line 3 in
> 
>  a %>%
>  b %>%
>  c %>%
>  d
> 
> and be able to examine the intermediate result of evaluating b before
piping it into c.  (Or maybe that's off by one:  maybe I'd prefer to
examine the inputs to d if I put a breakpoint there.  I'd have to try it to
find out which feels more natural.)
In order to place a breakpoint on line 3, I think you'll need to wrap
`c()` in curly braces and insert a `browser()` call. And at that point
you're changing the semantics of `c()` and you'll need to manually
write the placeholder for the input:

a() |>
  b() |>
  { browser(); c(.) } |>
  d()

I don't see any way around this. I guess it could be done behind the 
scenes by the IDE when a breakpoint is set though. Note that this
doesn't require any changes to the parser and already works with the
magrittr pipe.

Then there's the issue of continuing to step-debug through the
pipeline. This could be achieved by parsing `a |> b()` as `{a} |>
{b()}`. so that each sub-expression carries source references. In
general, there are metaprogramming patterns that would be made easier
if calls to `function` or `if` always had a body wrapped in `{`. It is
too late to change historical operators but maybe it makes sense for
newer ones?

Lionel


	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Lionel Henry wrote:
> Hi Gabe,
>
>> There is another way the pipe could go into base R that could not be
>> done in package space and has the potential to mitigate some pretty
>> serious downsides to the pipes relating to debugging
>
> I assume you're thinking about the large stack trace of the magrittr
> pipe? You don't need a parser transformation to solve this problem
> though, the pipe could be implemented as a regular function with a
> very limited impact on the stack. And if implemented as a SPECIALSXP,
> it would be completely invisible. We've been planning to rewrite %>%
> to fix the performance and the stack print, it's just low priority.
>
> About the semantics of local evaluation that were proposed in this
> thread, I think that wouldn't be right. A native pipe should be
> consistent with other control flow constructs like `if` and `for` and
> evaluate in the current environment. In that case, the `.` binding, if
> any, would be restored to its original value in `on.exit()` (or through
> unwind-protection if implemented in C).
>
Sorry to be blunt but adding/removing a variable from a caller's
environment is a horrible design idea. Think about what happens if an
argument in a pipe stage contains a pipe. (Not completely
unreasonable, e.g. for a left_join). We already have such a design
lurking in (at least) one place in base code and it keeps biting. It's
pretty high on my list to be expunged.

If a variable is to be used it needs to be in its own
scope/environment.  There is another option, which is to rewrite the
pipe as a nested call and evaluate that in the parent frame. Not likely
to be much worse for debugging and might even be better.  Some
tinkering with these ideas is at

https://gitlab.com/luke-tierney/pipes

All that said, there is nothing that can be done with pipes that can't
be done without them. They may be the most visible aspect of the
tidyverse but they are also the least essential. I don't find them
useful, mostly because they make debugging harder and add to the
cognitive load of figuring out what is actually going on in the
evaluation process. So I don't use them in my work or my teaching (I
do mention them in teaching so students can understand them when they
see them). Many people clearly like them, and that's fine. But they
are not in any way, shape, or form essential.

I can't speak for all of R core on this, but this is how I look at the
question of inclusion in base: R core developer time is a (very)
scarce resource. Any part of that resource that is used to incorporate
and maintain in base something that can be implemented reasonably well
in a package is then not available for improving and maintaining parts
of R that have to be in base. There would need to be extremely strong
reasons for reallocating resources in this way and I just don't see
how that case can be made here.

It is certainly possible that thinking about pipes might suggest tome
useful low level primitives to add that would have to live in base and
might be useful in other contexts. Those might be worth considering.
[Some kind of 'exec()' or aving an 'exec()' or
'tailcall()' primitive
to reuse a call frame for example.]

Best,

luke
> Best,
> Lionel
>
>
>> On 6 Oct 2019, at 01:50, Gabriel Becker <gabembecker at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I think there's some nuance here that makes makes me agree
partially with
>> each "side".
>>
>> The pipe is inarguably extremely popular. Many probably think of it as
a
>> core feature of R, along with the tidyverse that (as was pointed out)
>> largely surrounds it and drives its popularity. Whether its a good or
bad
>> thing that they think that doesn't change the fact that by my
estimation
>> that Ant is correct that they do. BUT, I don't agree with him that
that, by
>> itself, is a reason to put it in base R in the form that it exists now.
For
>> the current form, there aren't really any major downsides that I
see to
>> having people just use the package version.
>>
>> Sure it may be a little weird, but it doesn't ever really stop the
>> people from using it or present a significant barrier. Another major
point
>> is that many (most?) base R functions are not necessarily tooled to be
>> endomorphic, which in my personal opinion is *largely* the only place
that
>> the pipes are really compelling.
>>
>> That was for pipes as the exist in package space, though. There is
another
>> way the pipe could go into base R that could not be done in package
space
>> and has the potential to mitigate some pretty serious downsides to the
>> pipes relating to debugging, which would be to implement them in the
parser.
>>
>> If
>>
>> iris %>% group_by(Species) %>% summarize(mean_sl =
mean(Sepal.Length)) %>%
>> filter(mean_sl > 5)
>>
>>
>> were *parsed* as, for example, into
>>
>> local({
>>            . = group_by(iris, Species)
>>
>>            ._tmp2 = summarize(., mean_sl = mean(Sepal.Length))
>>
>>            filter(., mean_sl > 5)
>>       })
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Then debuggiing (once you knew that) would be much easier but behavaior
>> would be the same as it is now. There could even be some sort of
>> step-through-pipe debugger at that point added as well for additional
>> convenience.
>>
>> There is some minor precedent for that type of transformative parsing:
>>
>>> expr = parse(text = "5 -> x")
>>
>>> expr
>>
>> expression(5 -> x)
>>
>>> expr[[1]]
>>
>> x <- 5
>>
>>
>> Though thats a much more minor transformation.
>>
>> All of that said, I believe Jim Hester (cc'ed) suggested something
along
>> these lines at the RSummit a couple of years ago, and thus far R-core
has
>> not shown much appetite for changing things in the parser.
>>
>> Without that changing, I'd have to say that my vote, for whatever
its
>> worth, comes down on the side of pipes being fine in packages. A
summary of
>> my reasoning being that it only makes sense for them to go into R
itself if
>> doing so fixes an issue that cna't be fixed with them in package
space.
>>
>> Best,
>> ~G
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 5:26 AM Ant F <antoine.fabri at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>>> Yes but this exageration precisely misses the point.
>>>
>>> Concerning your examples:
>>>
>>> * I love fread but I think it makes a lot of subjective choices
that are
>>> best associated with a package. I think it
>>> changed a lot with time and can still change, and we have great
developers
>>> willing to maintain it and be reactive
>>> regarding feature requests or bug reports
>>>
>>> *.group_by() adds a class that works only (or mostly) with
tidyverse verbs,
>>> that's very easy to dismiss it as an inclusion in base R.
>>>
>>> * summarize is an alternative to aggregate, that would be very
confusing to
>>> have both
>>>
>>> Now to be fair to your argument we could think of other functions
such as
>>> data.table::rleid() which I believe base R misses deeply,
>>> and there is nothing wrong with packaged functions making their way
to base
>>> R.
>>>
>>> Maybe there's an existing list of criteria for inclusion, in
base R but if
>>> not I can make one up for the sake of this discussion :) :
>>> * 1) the functionality should not already exist
>>> * 2) the function should be general enough
>>> * 3) the function should have a large amount of potential of users
>>> * 4) the function should be robust, and not require extensive
maintenance
>>> * 5) the function should be stable, we shouldn't expect new
features ever 2
>>> months
>>> * 6) the function should have an intuitive interface in the context
of the
>>> rest ot base R
>>>
>>> I guess 1 and 6 could be held against my proposal, because :
>>> (1) everything can be done without pipes
>>> (6) They are somewhat surprising (though with explicit dots not
that much,
>>> and not more surprising than say `bquote()`)
>>>
>>> In my opinion the + offset the -.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't advise taking magrittr's pipe (providing the
license allows so)
>>> for instance, because it makes a lot of design choices and has a
complex
>>> behavior, what I propose is 2 lines of code very unlikely to evolve
or
>>> require maintenance.
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>> PS: I just receive the digest once a day so If you don't
"reply all" I can
>>> only react later.
>>>
>>> Le sam. 5 oct. 2019 ? 19:54, Hugh Marera <hugh.marera at
gmail.com> a ?crit :
>>>
>>>> I exaggerated the comparison for effect. However, it is not
very
>>> difficult
>>>> to find functions in dplyr or data.table or indeed other
packages that
>>> one
>>>> may wish to be in base R. Examples, for me, could include
>>>> data.table::fread, dplyr::group_by & dplyr::summari[sZ]e
combo, etc.
>>> Also,
>>>> the "popularity" of magrittr::`%>%` is mostly
attributable to the
>>> tidyverse
>>>> (an advanced superset of R). Many R users don't even know
that they are
>>>> installing the magrittr package.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 6:30 PM I?aki Ucar <iucar at
fedoraproject.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 17:15, Hugh Marera <hugh.marera at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How is your argument different to, say,  "Should
dplyr or data.table
>>> be
>>>>>> part of base R as they are the most popular data
science packages and
>>>>> they
>>>>>> are used by a large number of users?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Two packages with many features, dozens of functions and
under heavy
>>>>> development to fix bugs, add new features and improve
performance, vs.
>>>>> a single operator with a limited and well-defined
functionality, and a
>>>>> reference implementation that hasn't changed in years
(but certainly
>>>>> hackish in a way that probably could only be improved from
R itself).
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't you really spot the difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> I?aki
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>>
>>
>> 	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> 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
>
-- 
Luke Tierney
Ralph E. Wareham Professor of Mathematical Sciences
University of Iowa                  Phone:             319-335-3386
Department of Statistics and        Fax:               319-335-3017
    Actuarial Science
241 Schaeffer Hall                  email:   luke-tierney at uiowa.edu
Iowa City, IA 52242                 WWW:  http://www.stat.uiowa.edu

> On 7 Oct 2019, at 17:04, Tierney, Luke <luke-tierney at uiowa.edu>
wrote:
> 
>  Think about what happens if an
> argument in a pipe stage contains a pipe. (Not completely
> unreasonable, e.g. for a left_join).
It should work exactly as it does in a local environment.

```
`%foo%` <- function(x, y) {
  env <- parent.frame()

  # Use `:=` to avoid partial matching on .env/.frame
  rlang::scoped_bindings(. := x, .env = env)

  eval(substitute(y), env)
}

"A" %foo% {
  print(.)
  "B" %foo% print(.)
  print(.)
}
#> [1] "A"
#> [1] "B"
#> [1] "A"

print(.)
#> Error in print(.) : object '.' not found

```

The advantage is that side effects (such as assigning variables or calling
`return()`) will occur in the expected environment. I don't see it causing
problems except in artificial cases. Am I missing something?

I agree that restraining the pipe to a single placeholder (to avoid
double evaluation) would be a good design too.

I can't access https://gitlab.com/luke-tierney/pipes, it appears to be 404.

Best,
Lionel