R devel - Jun 2024 - \>

> 	  Yes. I'm not yet facile with "|>", but I'm
learning.
> 
> 
> 	  Spencer Graves
There's very little to know.  This:

      x |> f() |> g()

is just a different way of writing

     g(f(x))

If f() or g() have extra arguments, just add them afterwards:

     x |> f(a = 1) |> g(b = 2)

is just

     g(f(x, a = 1), b = 2)

This isn't quite true of the magrittr pipe, but it is exactly true of 
the base pipe.

Duncan Murdoch

Hi, Duncan:


On 6/29/24 17:24, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> 
>> ????? Yes. I'm not yet facile with "|>", but I'm
learning.
>>
>>
>> ????? Spencer Graves
> 
> There's very little to know.? This:
> 
>  ???? x |> f() |> g()
> 
> is just a different way of writing
> 
>  ??? g(f(x))
> 
> If f() or g() have extra arguments, just add them afterwards:
> 
>  ??? x |> f(a = 1) |> g(b = 2)
> 
> is just
> 
>  ??? g(f(x, a = 1), b = 2)

	  Agreed. If I understand correctly, the supporters of the former think 
it's easier to highlight and execute a subset of the earlier character 
string, e.g., "x |> f(a = 1)" than the corresponding subset of the 
latter, "f(x, a = 1)". I remain unconvinced.


	  For debugging, I prefer the following:


	  fx1 <- f(x, a = 1)
	  g(fx1, b=2)


	  Yes, "fx1" occupies storage space that the other two do not. Ir you
are writing code for an 8086, the difference in important. However, for 
my work, ease of debugging is important, which is why I prefer, "fx1 <- 
f(x, a = 1); g(fx1, b=2)".


	  Thanks, again, for the reply.
	  Spencer Graves
> 
> This isn't quite true of the magrittr pipe, but it is exactly true of 
> the base pipe.
> 
> Duncan Murdoch
>