[Rd] Support for user defined unary functions
Jim Hester
james.f.hester at gmail.com
Thu Mar 16 18:51:40 CET 2017
I used the `function(x)` form to explicitly show the function was
being called with only one argument, clearly performance implications
are not relevant for these examples.
I think of this mainly as a gap in the tooling we provide users and
package authors. R has native prefix `+1`, functional `f(1)` and infix
`1 + 1` operators, but we only provide a mechanism to create user
defined functional and infix operators.
One could also argue that the user defined infix operators are also
ugly and could be replaced by `f(a, b)` calls as well; beauty is in
the eye of the beholder.
The unquote example [1] shows one example where this gap in tooling
caused authors to co-opt existing unary exclamation operator, this
same gap is part of the reason the formula [2] and question mark [3]
operators have been used elsewhere in non standard contexts.
If the language provided package authors with a native way to create
unary operators like it already does for the other operator types
these machinations would be unnecessary.
[1]: https://github.com/hadley/rlang/blob/master/R/tidy-unquote.R#L17
[2]: https://cran.r-project.org/package=ensurer
[3]: https://cran.r-project.org/package=types
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Gabriel Becker <gmbecker at ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> 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 this, but this
> effectively requires non-standard parsing, as ~!!x is interpreted as
> ~(`!!`(x)) rather than ~(!(!(x)) as the R parser understands it. Others and
> I pointed out this was less than desirable, but if something like it was
> going to happen it would hopefully happen in the language specification,
> rather than in a package (and also hopefully not using !! specifically).
>
> Like you, I actually tend to prefer the functional form myself in most
> cases. There are functional forms that would work for the above case (e.g.,
> something like the .() that DBI uses), but that's probably off topic here,
> and not a decision I'm directly related to anyway.
>
> Best,
> ~G
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Martin Maechler
> <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com>
>> >>>>> on Thu, 16 Mar 2017 12:31:56 -0400 writes:
>>
>> > 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)
>>
>> [more efficient would be `%chr%` <- as.character]
>>
>> > `%identical%` <- function(x, y) identical(x, y)
>> > quote("100" %identical% %chr% 100)
>> > #> "100" %identical% (`%chr%`(100))
>>
>> > "100" %identical% %chr% 100
>> > #> [1] TRUE
>>
>> > `%num%` <- as.numeric
>> > quote(1 + - %num% "5")
>> > #> 1 + -(`%num%`("5"))
>>
>> > 1 + - %num% "5"
>> > #> [1] -4
>>
>> > Jim
>>
>> I'm sorry to be a bit of a spoiler to "coolness", but
>> you may know that I like to applaud Norm Matloff for his book
>> title "The Art of R Programming",
>> because for me good code should also be beautiful to some extent.
>>
>> I really very much prefer
>>
>> f(x)
>> to %f% x
>>
>> and hence I really really really cannot see why anybody would prefer
>> the ugliness of
>>
>> 1 + - %num% "5"
>> to
>> 1 + -num("5")
>>
>> (after setting num <- as.numeric )
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Gabriel Becker
>> <gmbecker at ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>> >> Jim,
>> >>
>> >> This seems cool. Thanks for proposing it. To be concrete, he
>> user-defined
>> >> unary operations would be of the same precedence (or just slightly
>> below?)
>> >> built-in unary ones? So
>> >>
>> >> "100" %identical% %chr% 100
>> >>
>> >> would work and return TRUE under your patch?
>> >>
>> >> And with %num% <- as.numeric, then
>> >>
>> >> 1 + - %num% "5"
>> >>
>> >> would also be legal (though quite ugly imo) and work?
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> ~G
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Jim Hester
>> <james.f.hester at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> R has long supported user defined binary (infix) functions,
>> defined
>> >>> with `%fun%`. A one line change [1] to R's grammar allows users to
>> >>> define unary (prefix) functions in the same manner.
>> >>>
>> >>> `%chr%` <- function(x) as.character(x)
>> >>> `%identical%` <- function(x, y) identical(x, y)
>> >>>
>> >>> %chr% 100
>> >>> #> [1] "100"
>> >>>
>> >>> %chr% 100 %identical% "100"
>> >>> #> [1] TRUE
>> >>>
>> >>> This seems a natural extension of the existing functionality and
>> >>> requires only a minor change to the grammar. If this change seems
>> >>> acceptable I am happy to provide a complete patch with suitable
>> tests
>> >>> and documentation.
>> >>>
>> >>> [1]:
>> >>> Index: src/main/gram.y
>> >>>
>> ===================================================================
>> >>> --- src/main/gram.y (revision 72358)
>> >>> +++ src/main/gram.y (working copy)
>> >>> @@ -357,6 +357,7 @@
>> >>> | '+' expr %prec UMINUS { $$ = xxunary($1,$2);
>> >>> setId( $$, @$); }
>> >>> | '!' expr %prec UNOT { $$ = xxunary($1,$2);
>> >>> setId( $$, @$); }
>> >>> | '~' expr %prec TILDE { $$ = xxunary($1,$2);
>> >>> setId( $$, @$); }
>> >>> + | SPECIAL expr { $$ =
>> xxunary($1,$2);
>> >>> setId( $$, @$); }
>> >>> | '?' expr { $$ = xxunary($1,$2);
>> >>> setId( $$, @$); }
>> >>>
>> >>> | expr ':' expr { $$ =
>> >>> xxbinary($2,$1,$3); setId( $$, @$); }
>> >>>
>> >>> ______________________________________________
>> >>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Gabriel Becker, PhD
>> >> Associate Scientist (Bioinformatics)
>> >> Genentech Research
>>
>> > ______________________________________________
>> > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
>
>
>
> --
> Gabriel Becker, PhD
> Associate Scientist (Bioinformatics)
> Genentech Research
More information about the R-devel
mailing list