Re: [Rd] A few suggestions and perspectives from a PhD student

2017-05-09 Thread Hilmar Berger
On 09/05/17 11:22, Joris Meys wrote: > > > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Hilmar Berger > > wrote: > > Hi, > > On 08/05/17 16:37, Ista Zahn wrote: > > One of the key strengths of R is that packages are not akin to >

Re: [Rd] A few suggestions and perspectives from a PhD student

2017-05-09 Thread Lionel Henry
> Third, there's a lot of nonstandard evaluation going on in all these > packages. Using them inside your own functions requires serious attention > (eg the difference between aes() and aes_() in ggplot2). Actually, even > though I definitely see the merits of these packages in data analysis, the

Re: [Rd] A few suggestions and perspectives from a PhD student

2017-05-09 Thread Joris Meys
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Hilmar Berger wrote: > Hi, > > On 08/05/17 16:37, Ista Zahn wrote: > >> One of the key strengths of R is that packages are not akin to "fan >> created mods". They are a central and necessary part of the R system. >> >> I would tend to

Re: [Rd] A few suggestions and perspectives from a PhD student

2017-05-09 Thread Hilmar Berger
Hi, On 08/05/17 16:37, Ista Zahn wrote: One of the key strengths of R is that packages are not akin to "fan created mods". They are a central and necessary part of the R system. I would tend to disagree here. R packages are in their majority not maintained by the core R developers. Concepts,

Re: [Rd] A few suggestions and perspectives from a PhD student

2017-05-08 Thread Hadley Wickham
> There are tradeoffs. As demonstrated above, the pipe is clearly > inferior in that it is doing a lot of complicated stuff under the > hood, and when you try to traceback() through the call stack you have > to sift through all that complicated stuff. That's a pretty big > drawback in my opinion.

Re: [Rd] A few suggestions and perspectives from a PhD student

2017-05-08 Thread Ista Zahn
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Antonin Klima wrote: > Thanks for the answers, > > I’m aware of the ‘.’ option, just wanted to give a very simple example. > > But the lapply ‘…' parameter use has eluded me and thanks for enlightening me. > > What do you mean by messing up

Re: [Rd] A few suggestions and perspectives from a PhD student

2017-05-08 Thread Antonin Klima
Thanks for the answers, I’m aware of the ‘.’ option, just wanted to give a very simple example. But the lapply ‘…' parameter use has eluded me and thanks for enlightening me. What do you mean by messing up the call stack. As far as I understand it, piping should translate into same code as

Re: [Rd] A few suggestions and perspectives from a PhD student

2017-05-05 Thread Gabor Grothendieck
Regarding the anonymous-function-in-a-pipeline point one can already do this which does use brackets but even so it involves fewer characters than the example shown. Here { . * 2 } is basically a lambda whose argument is dot. Would this be sufficient? library(magrittr) 1.5 %>% { . * 2 }

Re: [Rd] A few suggestions and perspectives from a PhD student

2017-05-05 Thread Ista Zahn
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Antonin Klima wrote: > Dear Sir or Madam, > > I am in 2nd year of my PhD in bioinformatics, after taking my Master’s in > computer science, and have been using R heavily during my PhD. As such, I > have put together a list of certain

[Rd] A few suggestions and perspectives from a PhD student

2017-05-05 Thread Antonin Klima
Dear Sir or Madam, I am in 2nd year of my PhD in bioinformatics, after taking my Master’s in computer science, and have been using R heavily during my PhD. As such, I have put together a list of certain features in R that, in my opinion, would be beneficial to add, or could be improved. The