To illustrate this we will work an example.
I think I have hit a very good set of trade-offs, and I have now spent significant time creating documentation and examples.
I wish there had been such a package weeks ago, and that I had started using this approach in my own client work at that time. If you are already a
dplyr user I strongly suggest trying
seplyr in your own analysis projects.
I have been writing a lot (too much) on the
tidyeval lately. The reason is: major changes were recently announced. If you are going to use
dplyr well and correctly going forward you may need to understand some of the new issues (if you don’t use
dplyr you can safely skip all of this). I am trying to work out (publicly) how to best incorporate the new methods into:
- real world analyses,
- reusable packages,
- and teaching materials.
I think some of the apparent discomfort on my part comes from my feeling that
dplyr never really gave standard evaluation (SE) a fair chance. In my opinion:
dplyr is based strongly on non-standard evaluation (NSE, originally through
lazyeval and now through
tidyeval) more by the taste and choice than by actual analyst benefit or need.
dplyr isn’t my package, so it isn’t my choice to make; but I can still have an informed opinion, which I will discuss below.
dplyr users one of the promises of the new
tidyeval system is an improved ability to program over
dplyr itself. In particular to add new verbs that encapsulate previously compound steps into better self-documenting atomic steps.
Let’s take a look at this capability.
I think a critical aspect of such an extension would be to treat such a notation as syntactic sugar and not insist such a pipe match magrittr semantics, or worse yet give a platform for authors to insert their own preferred ad-hoc semantics. Continue reading In praise of syntactic sugar
One of the great advantages to specifying complicated sequences of operations in data (rather than in code) is: it is often easier to transform and extend data. Explicit rich data beats vague convention and complicated code.
development version CRAN version of our
R helper function
wrapr::let() has switched from string-based substitution to abstract syntax tree based substitution (AST based substitution, or language based substitution).
I am looking for some feedback from
wrapr::let() users already doing substantial work with
wrapr::let(). If you are already using
wrapr::let() please test if the current development version of
wrapr works with your code. If you run into problems: I apologize, and please file a
In this article we will discuss composing standard-evaluation interfaces (SE: parametric, referentially transparent, or “looks only at values”) and composing non-standard-evaluation interfaces (NSE) in
To use it you must know some of its structure and notation. Here are some details paraphrased from the major
rlang client, the package dplyr:
vignette('programming', package = 'dplyr')).
:=" is needed to make left-hand-side re-mapping possible (adding yet another "more than one assignment type operator running around" notation issue).
!!" substitution requires parenthesis to safely bind (so the notation is actually "
(!! )", not "
- Left-hand-sides of expressions are names or strings, while right-hand-sides are
Here is an absolutely horrible way to confuse yourself and get an inflated reported
R-squared on a simple linear regression model in
We have written about this before, but we found a new twist on the problem (interactions with categorical variable encoding) which we would like to call out here. Continue reading An easy way to accidentally inflate reported R-squared in linear regression models