similar to: RFC: (in-principle) native unquoting for standard evaluation

Would this return a quosure? (i.e. a single sided formula that captures both expression and environment). That's the data structure we've adopted in tidyeval as it already has some built in support. Hadley On Friday, March 17, 2017, Michael Lawrence <lawrence.michael at gene.com> wrote: > Interesting idea. Lazy and non-standard evaluation is going to happen; the > language

I love the pointer analogy. Presumably the additional complication of scope breaks this however. * itself would have been a nice operator for this were it not prone to ambiguity (`a * *b` vs `a**b`, from which @ does not suffer). Would this extension require that function authors explicitly enable auto-quoting support? I somewhat envisioned functions seeing the resolved unquoted object (within

Yes, it would bind the language object to the environment, like an R-level promise (but "promise" of course refers specifically to just _lazy_ evaluation). For the uqs() thing, expanding calls like that is somewhat orthogonal to NSE. It would be nice in general to be able to write something like mean(x, extra_args...) without resorting to do.call(mean, c(list(x), extra_args)). If we had

Interesting idea. Lazy and non-standard evaluation is going to happen; the language needs a way to contain it. I'll extend the proposal so that prefixing a formal argument with @ in function() marks the argument as auto-quoting, so it arrives as a language object without use of substitute(). Kind of like how '*' in C declares a pointer and dereferences one. subset <- function(x,

Michael Lawrence (as last in long series of posters)... > Yes, it would bind the language object to the environment, like an > R-level promise (but "promise" of course refers specifically to just > _lazy_ evaluation). > > For the uqs() thing, expanding calls like that is somewhat orthogonal > to NSE. It would be nice in general to be able to write something like >

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Radford Neal <radford at cs.toronto.edu> wrote: > Michael Lawrence (as last in long series of posters)... > >> Yes, it would bind the language object to the environment, like an >> R-level promise (but "promise" of course refers specifically to just >> _lazy_ evaluation). >> >> For the uqs() thing, expanding calls

I would like a function to strip quotes off character strings. I should work like this: > A <- matrix(1:6, nrow = 2, ncol=3) > AF <- as.data.frame(A) > names(AF) <- c("First","Second","Third") > AF First Second Third 1 1 3 5 2 2 4 6 > names(AF)[2] [1] "Second" > attach(AF) >

>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 final two examples in ?make.unique do not appear to be relevant to that function, namely rbind(data.frame(x = 1), data.frame(x = 2), data.frame(x = 3)) rbind(rbind(data.frame(x = 1), data.frame(x = 2)), data.frame(x = 3)) both producing x 1 1 2 2 3 3 (identically) on R 3.4.3 and 3.5.1. Following a brief discussion on Twitter, Rich FitzJohn [1] identified that under R 1.8.0 (circa 2003,

Dear R-devel, There is a new feature in R-devel, which explicitly refers to LISP @ operator for splicing. > The backquote function bquote() has a new argument splice to enable splicing a computed list of values into an expression, like ,@ in LISP's backquote. Although the most upvoted SO question asking for exactly LISP's @ functionality in R doesn't seems to be addressed by this

Changes from v2 to v3: - split_key_value_strings renamed to parse_key_value_strings Changes from v1 to v2: - split the "simple unquoting" as helper - pass the unquoting function to split_key_value_strings - use right unquoting function when applying split_key_value_strings Pino Toscano (2): daemon: add split_key_value_strings helper daemon: use parse_key_value_strings

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

Changes from v1 to v2: - split the "simple unquoting" as helper - pass the unquoting function to split_key_value_strings - use right unquoting function when applying split_key_value_strings Pino Toscano (2): daemon: add split_key_value_strings helper daemon: use split_key_value_strings daemon/inspect_fs_unix.ml | 93 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------------- daemon/md.ml

s= "Hey" a = "Hello" table = rbind(s,a) write.table(table,paste("blah",".PROPERTIES",sep = ""),row.names = FALSE,col.names = FALSE) In my table, how do I output only the words and not the words with the quotations? -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/How-to-unquote-string-in-R-tp3025654p3025654.html Sent from the R

Hi all, Has anyone successfully used WWW::Mechanize with file_column? I''m trying to upload a bunch of images to a custom controller, and something''s going wrong with the parameter names. Using a noddy controller :create action that looks like this: def create render :text => params.inspect end I get this result from a manual upload from a form:

Hi all, I have the following problem. Inside R, I am trying to run a loop on several files. The data are stored in these files in a peculiar way, thus, at the same time I load the data, I would like to invoke a utility. I do this with "pipe". (The utility I am using is gbget from the package gbutils. It works correctly from shell, and it is not the problem.) The problem is that from

Full_Name: Jonathan Tuke Version: 2.4.0 OS: Mac OS X 10.4.8 Submission from: (NULL) (203.173.46.189) I am writing C code to implement in R. I am using R CMD SHLIB and then dyn.load("file.so"). The function I then call with .C("function"). Since I installed the latest R version, I have found that if I alter my C code and recompile, then use dyn.load("file.so"), the

Hello R experts, I plan to develop a tool for dynamic analysis of R programs. I would like to trace function calls at runtime, capturing argument and return values. Following a suggestion made some time ago on this list, my high-level implementation strategy is to rewrite the AST, augmenting call expressions with pre-call and post-call shims to capture the arguments and return value,