search for: unaries

I agree there is no reason they _need_ to be the same precedence, but I think SPECIALS are already have the proper precedence for both unary and binary calls. Namely higher than all the binary operators (except for `:`), but lower than the other unary operators. Even if we gave unary specials their own precedence I think it would end up in the same place. `%l%` <- function(x) tail(x, n =

The unquoting discussion is IMHO separate from this proposal and as you noted probably better served by a native operator with different precedence. I think the main benefit to providing user defined prefix operators is it allows package authors to experiment with operator ideas and gauge community interest. The current situation means any novel unary semantics either need to co-opt existing

R has long supported user defined binary (infix) functions, defined with `%fun%`. A one line change [1] to R's grammar allows users to define unary (prefix) functions in the same manner. `%chr%` <- function(x) as.character(x) `%identical%` <- function(x, y) identical(x, y) %chr% 100 #> [1] "100" %chr% 100 %identical% "100" #> [1] TRUE

Hello, Is there a way to define a custom unary operator in R (other than making a class and 'overloading' the normal unary operators in R)? The documentation seems to suggest that only custom binary operators are possible with the ``%abc%``construct but I was wondering whether any one has done so. None of the RSiteSearch or RSeek queries I posed suggested that this question had

>After off list discussions with Jonathan Carrol and with >Michael Lawrence I think it's doable, unambiguous, >and even imo pretty intuitive for an "unquote" operator. For those of us who are not CS/Lisp mavens, what is an "unquote" operator? Can you expression quoting and unquoting in R syntax and show a few examples where is is useful, intuitive, and fits in to

Jim, One more note about precedence. It prevents a solution like the one you proposed from solving all of the problems you cited. By my reckoning, a "What comes next is for NSE" unary operator needs an extremely low precedence, because it needs to greedily grab "everything" (or a large amount) that comes after it. Normal-style unary operators, on the other hand, explicitly

Gabe, The unary functions have the same precedence as normal SPECIALS (although the new unary forms take precedence over binary SPECIALS). So they are lower precedence than unary + and -. Yes, both of your examples are valid with this patch, here are the results and quoted forms to see the precedence. `%chr%` <- function(x) as.character(x) `%identical%` <- function(x, y)

Your example x = 5 exp = parse(text="f(uq(x)) + y +z") # expression: f(uq(x)) +y + z do_unquote(expr) # -> the language object f(5) + y + z could be done with the following wrapper for bquote my_do_unquote <- function(language, envir = parent.frame()) { if (is.expression(language)) { # bquote does not go into expressions, only calls

Hi llvmdev, I've noticed that there is no unary operator in LLVM. For unary operator such as Neg or Or operator, the IR builder just creates a binary operation with one dummy operand, 01823 <http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1BinaryOperator.html#a073c092ce74a122e898e435e60e84599> BinaryOperator <http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1BinaryOperator.html>

William, Unbeknownst to me when I sent this, Jonathon Carrol started a specific thread about unquoting and a proposal for supporting it at the language level, which I think is a better place to discuss unquoting specifically. That said, the basics as I understand them in the context of non-standard evaluation, unquoting (or perhaps interpolation) is essentially substituting part of an unevaluated

I guess this would establish a separate "namespace" of symbolic prefix operators, %*% being an example in the infix case. So you could have stuff like %?%, but for non-symbolic (spelled out stuff like %foo%), it's hard to see the advantage vs. foo(x). Those examples you mention should probably be addressed (eventually) in the core language, and it looks like people are already able

Hi, Thanks for the quick reply again. > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM, David Fang <fang at csl.cornell.edu> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've bootstrapped llvm/clang from svn-trunk on powerpc-darwin8 (g++-4.0.1), and >> have the following test results to share. >> Summary below, full log at: >>

Bill, Right. My example was the functional form for clarity. There is a desire for a unary-operator form. (rlang's !! and !!! operators described in the comments in the file I linked to). I can't really make that argument because I'm not one of the people who wanted that. You'd have to talk to the authors of the rlang package to find out their reasons for thinking that is

>>>>> Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> >>>>> on Thu, 16 Mar 2017 12:31:56 -0400 writes: > Gabe, > The unary functions have the same precedence as normal SPECIALS > (although the new unary forms take precedence over binary SPECIALS). > So they are lower precedence than unary + and -. Yes, both of your > examples are

Martin, Jim can speak directly to his motivations; I don't claim to be able to do so. That said, I suspect this is related to a conversation on twitter about wanting an infix "unquote" operator in the context of the non-standard evaluation framework Hadley Wickham and Lionel Henry (and possibly others) are working on. They're currently using !!! and !! for things related to

Is it correct (by its lack of mention in the R-Language Definition Manual) that it is impossible to create a user-defined unary operator? Ex: (This doesn't work, but it's an example of what I'm looking for) > "%PLUSONE%" <- function(x) x + 1 > %PLUSONE% 2 [1] 3 And if the above is impossible, am I limited to only the + - ~ ! unary operators for overloading? On

I am biased against introducing new syntax, but if one is experimenting with it one should make sure the precedence feels right. I think the unary and binary minus-sign operators have different precedences so I see no a priori reason to make the unary and binary %xxx% operators to be the same. Bill Dunlap TIBCO Software wdunlap tibco.com On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Michael Lawrence

I used the `function(x)` form to explicitly show the function was being called with only one argument, clearly performance implications are not relevant for these examples. I think of this mainly as a gap in the tooling we provide users and package authors. R has native prefix `+1`, functional `f(1)` and infix `1 + 1` operators, but we only provide a mechanism to create user defined functional

Hi everyone. What's going on here? > a <- matrix(1:4,2,2) > a [,1] [,2] [1,] 1 3 [2,] 2 4 > apply(a,2,sum) [1] 3 7 > apply(a,2,"+") [,1] [,2] [1,] 1 3 [2,] 2 4 > apply(a,1,"+") [,1] [,2] [1,] 1 2 [2,] 3 4 > help(apply) says that "+" should be quoted but is otherwise silent on unary

Hi R - listers, I am receiving an error. Does anyone know what this means? J ggplot(subset(foo, Rayos != "Rayos.NA"), aes(x=HTL, y=DevelopIndex, colour=TotalEggs)) +geom_point() +geom_jitter() + facet_grid(Aeventexhumed ~ Rayos) + geom_smooth(method="lm", fill=NA) + ylim(c(0, 7)) Error in +geom_smooth(method = "lm", fill = NA) : invalid argument to unary