Make uncount() generic
#1358
Merged
Make uncount() generic
#1358
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
DavisVaughan
reviewed
May 5, 2022
DavisVaughan
reviewed
May 5, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, I am fine with making uncount() generic, as it does seem more stable than the other functions mentioned in #1071, as you said. @hadley should weigh in about this though.
I agree with the placement of the dots. I am running revdeps now and will report back with the results. Hopefully no one was relying on positional args for .remove or .id here.
Could you also please add two NEWS bullets? One that mentions that ... have been added between the required and optional arguments, and one that mentions that uncount() has become generic. Both should reference this PR.
|
Revdepcheck shows no problems from this PR! |
|
Thanks @mgirlich ! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I guess that
uncount()is more stable than the other functions mentioned in #1071. This would currently be useful for dtplyr tidyverse/dtplyr#352@DavisVaughan Are you fine with making
uncount()generic or do you think the interface is not yet stable (enough)?