Functional sequences?

[moodymudskipper]

magrittr s functional sequences are useful when using a non tidyverse functional, where we don't have the formula notation. They are also more efficient than the formula notation.

They suffer from a bad flaw, they start with a . and it's been confusing users a lot, it still gets me sometimes.

A workaround is to start the chain with (.) or {.}.

I think for nakedpipe it d be much better to have the fs start with something special, (.) would have been a great candidate but it would be confusing as then nakedpipe would do the opposite of magrittr.

Technically we need an unary operator, so maybe we need a function and we'd do fseq(expr). And maybe fseq..() for the explicit variant?

[moodymudskipper]

is this too weird ?

(...) %.% {
  toupper()
  paste0("!")
}

rather than :

fseq({
  toupper()
  paste0("!")
})

I'm happy to spare parenthesis to help make the syntax clearer when using functionals. ... has a special meaning but it's also never use as a standard variable and would work in that case.

... %.% head() would be nice too but won't work (quotable but the call fails before first call is accessed).

[moodymudskipper]

or :

. %FS.% {
  toupper()
  paste0("!")
}

wich makes %FS..% straightforward. It would only accept a dot as a lhs, which makes it a lot like a unary op without brackets, such as repeat.

I think I like this last one.

%fs% s faster to type than %FS.% but probably less confusing to users to have a pattern.

We might drop the S though, F like function seems good enough.

[moodymudskipper]

having a special pipe means we can't make a function as easily out of ligging, printing, viewing pipes, but those should be less needed in functionals.

[moodymudskipper]

done!

[github-actions[bot]]

This old thread has been automatically locked. If you think you have found something related to this, please open a new issue and link to this old issue if necessary.