[External] brief update on the pipe operator in R-devel

'=>' can be defined as a function.  E.g., it could be the logical "implies"
function:
     > `=>` <- function(x, y) !x | y
     > TRUE => FALSE
     [1] FALSE
     > FALSE => TRUE
     [1] TRUE
It might be nice then to have deparse() display it as an infix operator
instead of the current prefix:
     > deparse(quote(p => q))
     [1] "`=>`(p, q)"
There was a user who recently wrote asking for an infix operator like -> or
=> that would deparse nicely for use in some sort of model specification.
The precedence of it as an operator is determined by what makes sense in 
the pipe construction.  Currently precedence appears to be

:: :::	access variables in a namespace
$ @	component / slot extraction
[ [[	indexing
^	exponentiation (right to left)
- +	unary minus and plus
:	sequence operator
%any%	special operators (including %% and %/%)
* /	multiply, divide
+ -	(binary) add, subtract
< > <= >= == !=	ordering and comparison
!	negation
& &&	and
| ||	or
=>      PIPE BIND
|>      PIPE
~	as in formulae
-> ->>	rightwards assignment
<- <<-	assignment (right to left)
=	assignment (right to left)
?	help (unary and binary)

(Most of this is taken from ?Syntax, but I added the new operators in 
based on the gram.y file).  So

A & B => C & D

would appear to be parsed as

(A & B) => (C & D)

I think this also makes sense; do you?

Duncan Murdoch
When used with |>, the parser will turn the |> and => into an ordinary
looking function call so deparsing is irrelevant.
     > deparse(quote(x |> tmp => f(7,arg2=tmp)))
     [1] "f(7, arg2 = x)"

-Bill

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:01 PM Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> wrote:

On 12 January 2021 at 20:38, I?aki Ucar wrote:
| On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 20:23, <luke-tierney at uiowa.edu> wrote:
| >
| > After some discussions we've settled on a syntax of the form
| >
| >      mtcars |> subset(cyl == 4) |> d => lm(mpg ~ disp, data = d)
| >
| > to handle cases where the pipe lhs needs to be passed to an argument
| > other than the first of the function called on the rhs. This seems a
| > to be a reasonable balance between making these non-standard cases
| > easy to see but still easy to write. This is now committed to R-devel.
|
| Interesting. Is the use of "d =>" restricted to pipelines? In other
| words, I think that it shouldn't be equivalent to "function(d)", i.e.,
| that this:
|
| x <- d => lm(mpg ~ disp, data = d)
|
| shouldn't work.

Looks like your wish was already granted:

   > mtcars |> subset(cyl == 4) |> d => lm(mpg ~ disp, data = d)
   Call:
   lm(formula = mpg ~ disp, data = subset(mtcars, cyl == 4))

   Coefficients:
   (Intercept)         disp
        40.872       -0.135

   > d => lm(mpg ~ disp, data = d)
   Error in `=>`(d, lm(mpg ~ disp, data = d)) : could not find function "=>"
   > x <- d => lm(mpg ~ disp, data = d)
   Error in `=>`(d, lm(mpg ~ disp, data = d)) : could not find function "=>"
   >
Dirk

--
https://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org

______________________________________________
R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

[External] brief update on the pipe operator in R-devel

Thread (6 messages)