[Rd] New pipe operator and gg plotz

[Duncan Murdoch]

Hadley's answer (#7 here: 
https://community.rstudio.com/t/why-cant-ggplot2-use/4372) makes it 
pretty clear that he thinks it would have been nice now if he had made 
that choice when ggplot2 came out, but it's not worth the effort now to 
change it.

Duncan Murdoch

On 06/12/2020 2:34 p.m., Avi Gross via R-devel wrote:
> As someone who switches back and forth between using standard R methods and those of the tidyverse, depending on the problem, my mood and whether Jupiter aligns with Saturn in the new age of Aquarius, I have a question about the forthcoming built-in pipe. Will it motivate anyone to eventually change or enhance the ggplot functionality to have a version that gets rid of the odd use of the addition symbol?
> 
> I mean I now sometimes have a pipeline that looks like:
> 
> Data %>%
> 	Do_this %>%
> 	Do_that(whatever) %>%
> 	ggplot(...) +
> 		geom_whatever(...) +
> 		...
> 
> My understanding is this is a bit of a historical anomaly that might someday be modified back.
> 
> As I understand it, the call to ggplot() creates a partially filled-in object that holds all kinds of useful info. The additional calls to geom_point() and so on will add/change that hidden object. Nothing much happens till the object is implicitly or explicitly given to print() which switches to the print function for objects of that type and creates a graph based on the contents of the object at that time. So, in theory, you could have a pipelined version of ggplot where the first function accepts something like a  data.frame or tibble as the default first argument and at the end returns the object we have been describing. All additional functions would then accept such an object as the (hidden?) first argument and return the modified object. The final function in the pipe would either have the value captured in a variable for later use or print implicitly generating a graph.
> 
> So the above silly example might become:
> 
> Data %>%
> 	Do_this %>%
> 	Do_that(whatever) %>%
> 	ggplot(...) %>%
> 	geom_whatever(...) %>%
> 	...
> 
> Or, am I missing something here?
> 
> The language and extensions such as are now in the tidyverse might be more streamlined and easier to read when using consistent notation. If we now build a reasonable version of the pipeline in, might we encourage other uses to gradually migrate back closer to the mainstream?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: R-devel <r-devel-bounces using r-project.org> On Behalf Of Rui Barradas
> Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2020 2:51 AM
> To: Gregory Warnes <greg using warnes.net>; Abby Spurdle <spurdle.a using gmail.com>
> Cc: r-devel <r-devel using r-project.org>
> Subject: Re: [Rd] New pipe operator
> 
> Hello,
> 
> If Hilbert liked beer, I like "pipe".
> 
> More seriously, a new addition like this one is going to cause problems yet unknown. But it's a good idea to have a pipe operator available. As someone used to magrittr's data pipelines, I will play with this base one before making up my mind. I don't expect its behavior to be exactly like magrittr "%>%" (and it's not). For the moment all I can say is that it is something R users are used to and that it now avoids loading a package.
> As for the new way to define anonymous functions, I am less sure. Too much syntatic sugar? Or am I finding the syntax ugly?
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Rui Barradas
> 
> 
> Às 03:22 de 06/12/20, Gregory Warnes escreveu:
>> If we’re being mathematically pedantic, the “pipe” operator is
>> actually function composition > That being said, pipes are a simple
>> and well-known idiom. While being less
>> than mathematically exact, it seems a reasonable   label for the (very
>> useful) behavior.
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 9:43 PM Abby Spurdle <spurdle.a using gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> This is a good addition
>>>
>>> I can't understand why so many people are calling this a "pipe".
>>> Pipes connect processes, via their I/O streams.
>>> Arguably, a more general interpretation would include sockets and files.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipeline_(Unix)
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_pipe
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_pipe
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, the magrittr-like operators are functions (not
>>> pipes), with nonstandard syntax.
>>> This is not consistent with R's original design philosophy, building
>>> on C, Lisp and S, along with lots of *important* math and stats.
>>>
>>> It's possible that some parties are interested in creating a kind of
>>> "data pipeline".
>>> I'm interested in this myself, and I think we could discuss this more.
>>> But I'm not convinced the magrittr-like operators help to achieve
>>> this goal.
>>> Which, in my opinion, would require one to model programs as directed
>>> graphs, along with some degree of asynchronous input.
>>>
>>> Presumably, these operators will be added to R anyway, and (almost)
>>> no one will listen to me.
>>>
>>> So, I would like to make one suggestion:
>>> Is it possible for these operators to *not* be named:
>>>       The R Pipe
>>>       The S Pipe
>>>       Or anything with a similar meaning.
>>>
>>> Maybe tidy pipe, or something else that links it to its proponents?
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> R-devel using r-project.org mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>>
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> 
> 
> Scanned by McAfee and confirmed virus-free.	
> Find out more here: https://bit.ly/2zCJMrO
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>