similar to: Proposal unary - operator for factors

>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

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

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 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>

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

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

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)

Hello -- I am trying to compile R-2.9.2 on IBM Power5 machine with AIX 5.3. I have posted three previous posts. Over time I have made significant progress towards getting a successful build. I am now getting the following error: ========================================================== begin installing recommended package mgcv * Installing *source* package 'mgcv' ... ** libs gmake[2]:

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 am making some changes to the permax library (so that it will accept NA's). This function performs a permutation analysis to identify discriminating attributes distinguishing two groups of observations. It takes the form (at its most simplistic): permax(data, ig1) where ig1 is one group of interest. The other group (if not specified) is assumed to be the remaining observations, namely,

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

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

I have a problem ordering by descending magnitude a POSIXt object. Can someone help please and let me know how to work around this. My goal is to be able to order my data by DATE and then by descending TIME. I have tried to include as much info as possible below. The problem stems from trying to read in times from a CSV file. I have converted the character time values to a POSIXt object using the

Hello, Is there a way of generating unary floating point operations (like ISD::FABS, ISD::FSIN, ...) from C code using clang? I am building a backend for a machine that has hw support for these ops and I need a way to test them. Thanks, Alex -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi guys I have been using R for a few months now and have come across an error that I have been trying to fix for a week or so now.I am trying to build a classifer that will classify the wine dataset using Naive Bayes. My code is as follows library (e1071) wine<- read.csv("C:\\Rproject\\Wine\\wine.csv") split<-sample(nrow(wine), floor(nrow(wine) * 0.5)) wine_training <-

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

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

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