Shorter lambdas
houshuang opened this issue · 4 comments
I was inspired by this library and by my experience in functional programming in general to try to hack up a shorter lambda syntax for R. %as% didn't work in blocks (with lapply etc). Here's what I came up with, inspired by Haskell and Clojure. It's pretty ugly, but it is a nice proof of concept. Wonder if it would be possible to use defmacro or strmacro to supply the function as a {} block instead of a string... Something for a future lambda.r, if we could make it cleaner/saner?
Hi, thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish. If you want an inline lambda expression, why wouldn't you simply use something like function(x) x + 5? I'm a bit bleary-eyed from putting together my discrete math course, so perhaps I'm missing something obvious.
Simply because I wanted something shorter :) I know it's silly, but I am so
used to Haskell, where you would do
folder + 0 [1 2 3] #-> 6
or Clojure where you can do
(map #(% * 2) [1 2 3]) #-> [2 4 6]
or Apple's new Swift where you can do
[1,2,3,4].map {$0 * 2}
After that, lapply(c(1,2,3), function(x) x * 2) seems too verbose :)
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Brian Lee Yung Rowe <
notifications@github.com> wrote:
Hi, thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not quite sure what you're trying
to accomplish. If you want an inline lambda expression, why wouldn't you
simply use something like function(x) x + 5? I'm a bit bleary-eyed from
putting together my discrete math course, so perhaps I'm missing something
obvious.—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#20 (comment).
http://reganmian.net/blog -- Random Stuff that Matters
Updated with some examples
> filter(">2", c(1,2,3,4))
[1] 3 4
> reduce("%+%2", 0, c(1,2,3))
[1] 6
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Stian Håklev shaklev@gmail.com wrote:
Simply because I wanted something shorter :) I know it's silly, but I am
so used to Haskell, where you would dofolder + 0 [1 2 3] #-> 6
or Clojure where you can do
(map #(% * 2) [1 2 3]) #-> [2 4 6]
or Apple's new Swift where you can do
[1,2,3,4].map {$0 * 2}
After that, lapply(c(1,2,3), function(x) x * 2) seems too verbose :)
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Brian Lee Yung Rowe <
notifications@github.com> wrote:Hi, thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not quite sure what you're trying
to accomplish. If you want an inline lambda expression, why wouldn't you
simply use something like function(x) x + 5? I'm a bit bleary-eyed from
putting together my discrete math course, so perhaps I'm missing something
obvious.—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#20 (comment).http://reganmian.net/blog -- Random Stuff that Matters
http://reganmian.net/blog -- Random Stuff that Matters
Ah okay :) I've thought about how to shorten lambdas as well, but decided it wasn't worth it unless I added some of the other features of lambda.r (e.g. pattern matching) to it. Funny, as I've already been accused of adding "syntactic alum" to R because of lambda.r syntax, so I'm not sure whether this would improve the situation or not. There's probably a way to do it with lazy evaluation and deparsing to make it cleaner, though I'd have to think about what type of interface would make sense.