similar to: Very small random effect estimation in lmer but not in stata xtmixed

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

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)

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

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

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

>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

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, I am trying to set up a C++ library for my R code. I followed the R-extension manual but found out that the example of "X.cpp, X_main.cpp" is somewhat too simple. Here is my code: //lib4R.h testing for interfacing C++ with R -- using C++ library in R #include <iostream> using namespace std; class lib4R { public: lib4R(); ~lib4R(); int

Quick update, I checked ldb-1.4.x to ldb-1.6.x and couldn't find an LDAP_REFERRAL_SCHEME defined anywhere. (Perhaps it's in an un-released version). So, for now a copy of the define from ldb_module (source4/dsdb/samdb/ldb_modules/ldb_module.h) will do, I guess: # cat samba-4.9.10-ldb-scheme.patch *** samba-4.9.10/source4/include/includes.h.orig 2019-07-02 14:47:43.008208717

Jim, This seems cool. Thanks for proposing it. To be concrete, he user-defined unary operations would be of the same precedence (or just slightly below?) built-in unary ones? So "100" %identical% %chr% 100 would work and return TRUE under your patch? And with %num% <- as.numeric, then 1 + - %num% "5" would also be legal (though quite ugly imo) and work? Best, ~G On

I don't have a positive or negative opinion on this yet, but I do have a question. If I define both unary and binary operators with the same name (in different frames, presumably), what would happen? Is "a %chr% b" a syntax error if unary %chr% is found first? If both might be found, does "a %chr% %chr% b" mean "%chr%(a, %chr% b)", or is it a syntax error

>>>>> 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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Norbert, thanks for your reply. Does that mean that the rpi build environment is not uptodate? -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: samba <samba-bounces at lists.samba.org> Im Auftrag von Norbert Hanke via samba Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. April 2019 21:28 An: samba at lists.samba.org Betreff: Re: [Samba] Make/Build Error on armhf Hi, I noticed the same, actually with many more shared

We are trying to read a sas export file into R. (Works fine on Mac by ftping the export file from solaris box and then importing to R with read.xport, this gives rational numbers etc.) Trying to do this on an IBM Power p655 running linux, reading the same sas export file as used on MAC, in this case the results are not rational. Many of the numbers are interpreted as INF etc. Is it possible