Closed egnha closed 7 years ago
It would be nice to have a tidyeval version of dots_values(), say dots_values_tidy():
dots_values()
dots_values_tidy()
dots_values_tidy <- function(..., .ignore_empty = c("trailing", "none", "all")) { dots <- dots_capture(..., `__quosured` = FALSE) dots <- dots_clean_empty(dots, function(x) is_missing(x$expr), .ignore_empty) if (is_null(dots)) { dots <- list(...) set_names(dots, names2(dots)) } else { map(dots, function(dot) eval_tidy(dot$expr, env = dot$env)) } }
This is simply dots_values() copied verbatim, with eval_bare() replaced by eval_tidy() in the else-clause.
eval_bare()
eval_tidy()
@lionel- Is this reasonable? (Or does rlang already provide this functionality?)
Then, for example, it would be possible for the user to implement a tidyeval version of dots_list() and dots_splice().
dots_list()
dots_splice()
eval_tidy(dots_values(...)) already does this.
eval_tidy(dots_values(...))
It would be nice to have a tidyeval version of
dots_values()
, saydots_values_tidy()
:This is simply
dots_values()
copied verbatim, witheval_bare()
replaced byeval_tidy()
in the else-clause.@lionel- Is this reasonable? (Or does rlang already provide this functionality?)
Then, for example, it would be possible for the user to implement a tidyeval version of
dots_list()
anddots_splice()
.