Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[R-Forge #1984] Functional Queries #641

Closed
arunsrinivasan opened this issue Jun 8, 2014 · 7 comments · Fixed by #5104
Closed

[R-Forge #1984] Functional Queries #641

arunsrinivasan opened this issue Jun 8, 2014 · 7 comments · Fixed by #5104

Comments

@arunsrinivasan
Copy link
Member

Submitted by: Yike Lu; Assigned to: Nobody; R-Forge link

Add a function, perhaps dtquery=function(DT, ...) DT[...]

I just checked, and this syntax indeed works (it was a very easy function program). This would allow higher order abstractions as part of the standard implementation.

@jangorecki
Copy link
Member

It could be simply done by

dtquery = data.table:::`[.data.table`

@MichaelChirico
Copy link
Member

I'm not sure there's any demand for this?

Seems most suited to %>% chains, so perhaps it could be added in dtplyr instead?

@jangorecki
Copy link
Member

jangorecki commented Nov 1, 2019

something related just spotted in the wild: https://stackoverflow.com/a/58652478/2490497

@mattdowle mattdowle modified the milestones: 1.12.7, 1.12.9 Dec 8, 2019
@jangorecki jangorecki removed the High label Jun 3, 2020
@mattdowle mattdowle modified the milestones: 1.13.1, 1.13.3 Oct 17, 2020
@dcaseykc
Copy link

dcaseykc commented Nov 2, 2020

Having an exported version of [.data.table (via dtquery) would be helpful for attempts to extend data.table without running afoul of warnings about using ::: in packages.

@avimallu
Copy link
Contributor

@jangorecki, this will be closed with #4304, or is it completely different? This SO examples linked seem to point to it serving the same purpose.

@jangorecki
Copy link
Member

not really

@MichaelChirico
Copy link
Member

IINM this is duplicate of #4872 which now has much more traffic; closing this one

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

6 participants