search for: rsummit

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

...= "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 bein...

...= "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 bein...

...nt 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 sens...

...pr >> >> 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 >&gt...

...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...

...pr >> >> 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 >&gt...