similar to: Coping with non-standard evaluation in R program analysis

Hi Evan, You may find some parts of what we are doing with genthat useful. Genthat is a tool for creating unit tests by recording argument and return values of calls. This is done by instrumentation of the source code. The git repo with the code is here https://github.com/PRL-PRG/genthat We don?t really deal with NSE though. It could be something worth thinking about for us. The contact for

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,

quote(expr) will make no changes in expr, it just returns its one argument, unevaluated. substitute could be used in your lapply(..., library) example to give library a name instead of a character string for an input (which might be necessary if the character.only argument were not available) lapply(c("MASS", "splines"), function(pkg) eval(substitute(library(pkg),

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

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

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

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 >

(please be gentle, it's my first time) I am interested in discussions (possibly reiterating past threads -- searching didn't turn up much) on the possibility of supporting standard evaluation unquoting at the language level. This has been brought up in a recent similar thread here [1] and on Twitter [2] where I proposed the following desired (in-principle) syntax f <-

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

On 3/27/20 15:19, Hadley Wickham wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 4:01 PM Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org > <mailto:hpages at fredhutch.org>> wrote: > > > > On 3/27/20 12:00, Hadley Wickham wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Herv? Pag?s > <hpages at fredhutch.org <mailto:hpages at

I'm trying to use the IAPWS95 package with the tidyverse packages. For some reason, the function is not outputting the correct rho. A minimal example with results is below. I've also included the definition of the DTp function from the IAPWS95 library. ==================================== library(IAPWS95) library(tidyverse) initial <- data.frame(T=c(279,294),p=c(0.46,0.46))

Hi Shawn, I don't think it has anything to do with the tidyverse. If you keep simplifying your example you'll get all the way down to > DTp(T=c(279,294),p=c(0.46,0.46)) [1] 1000.12283 --Ista On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Shawn Way <SWay at meco.com> wrote: > I'm trying to use the IAPWS95 package with the tidyverse packages. For some reason, the function is not

If you were curious about the hidden details of the memory layout in R, the best reference is the source code. In your example, you are not getting to your string because there is one more pointer in the way, "x" is a vector of strings, each string is represented by a pointer. At C level, there is an API for getting an address of the value, e.g. INTEGER(x) or CHAR(STRING_ELT(x)). At

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 4:01 PM Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org> wrote: > > > On 3/27/20 12:00, Hadley Wickham wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org > > <mailto:hpages at fredhutch.org>> wrote: > > > > Hi Tomas, > > > > On 3/27/20 07:01, Tomas Kalibera wrote:

Hi David, ? Thanks for the correction concerning the "else" issue. ? Taking your code and removing some lines (to increase readability): ? library(pryr) ? data <- array(dim = c(5)) for(x in 1:5) { ?? data[x] <- as.integer(x * 2) } ? #print(data) ? add = address(data) for(x in 1:5) { ?? data[x] <- as.integer(0) } ? if (add == address(data)) { print("Address did not

Hi, ? To get the memory address of where the value of variable "x" (of datatype "numeric") is stored one does the following in R (in 32 bit): ? ??? ? library(pryr) ? ?? ?x <- 1024 ?? ?? addr <- as.numeric(address(x)) +?24?? ?# 24 is needed to jump the variable info and point to the data itself (i.e. 1024) ? The question now is what is the value of the jump?so that one

Dear all, I have a question about R's modification in place and replacement functions. I was working through Hadley Wickham's Advanced R section on Replacement Functions and in a file (say test.R) I wrote: `second<-` <- function(x, value) { x[2] <- value x } x <- 1:10 second(x) <- 5L print(x) library(pryr) x <- 1:10 print(address(x)) second(x) <- 6L

> On Nov 12, 2017, at 8:47 AM, lille stor <lille.stor at gmx.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Given the following R code: > > library(pryr) > > data <- array(dim = c(5)) > > for(x in 1:5) > { > data[x] <- as.integer(x * 2) > } > > add = address(data) # save address of "data" > > for(x in

Sir, How to get the closing price from this link http://www.google.com/finance/historical?q=NSE:RCOM I installed quantmod getSymbols('NSE:RCOM',src='google') gives me this error********************** Error in download.file(paste(google.URL, "q=", Symbols.name, "&startdate=", : cannot open URL