Why is enquo + !! preferable to substitute + eval

Question

In the following example, why should we favour using f1 over f2? Is it more efficient in some sense? For someone used to base R, it seems more natu

Answer 1

To add some nuance, these things are not necessarily that complex in base R.

It is important to remember to use eval.parent() when relevant to evaluate substituted arguments in the right environment, if you use eval.parent() properly the expression in nested calls will find their ways. If you don't you might discover environment hell :).

The base tool box that I use is made of quote(), substitute(), bquote(), as.call(), and do.call() (the latter useful when used with substitute()

Without going into details here is how to solve in base R the cases presented by @Artem and @Tung, without any tidy evaluation, and then the last example, not using quo / enquo, but still benefiting from splicing and unquoting (!!! and !!)

We'll see that splicing and unquoting makes code nicer (but requires functions to support it!), and that in the present cases using quosures doesn't improve things dramatically (but still arguably does).

solving Artem's case with base R

f0 <- function( myExpr ) {
  eval(substitute(myExpr), list(a=2, b=3))
}

g0 <- function( myExpr ) {
  val <- eval.parent(substitute(f0(myExpr)))
  val
}

f0(a+b)
#> [1] 5
g0(a+b)
#> [1] 5

solving Tung's 1st case with base R

my_summarise0 <- function(df, group_var, select_var) {

  group_var  <- substitute(group_var)
  select_var <- substitute(select_var)

  # create new name
  mean_name <- paste0("mean_", as.character(select_var))

  eval.parent(substitute(
  df %>%
    select(select_var, group_var) %>% 
    group_by(group_var) %>%
    summarise(mean_name := mean(select_var))))
}

library(dplyr)
set.seed(1234)
d = data.frame(x = c(1, 1, 2, 2, 3),
               y = rnorm(5),
               z = runif(5))
my_summarise0(d, x, z)
#> # A tibble: 3 x 2
#>       x mean_z
#>     
#> 1     1  0.619
#> 2     2  0.603
#> 3     3  0.292

solving Tung's 2nd case with base R

grouping_vars <- c(quote(x), quote(y))
eval(as.call(c(quote(group_by), quote(d), grouping_vars))) %>%
  summarise(mean_z = mean(z))
#> # A tibble: 5 x 3
#> # Groups:   x [3]
#>       x      y mean_z
#>       
#> 1     1 -1.21   0.694
#> 2     1  0.277  0.545
#> 3     2 -2.35   0.923
#> 4     2  1.08   0.283
#> 5     3  0.429  0.292

in a function:

my_summarise02 <- function(df, select_var, ...) {

  group_var  <- eval(substitute(alist(...)))
  select_var <- substitute(select_var)

  # create new name
  mean_name <- paste0("mean_", as.character(select_var))

  df %>%
    {eval(as.call(c(quote(select),quote(.), select_var, group_var)))} %>% 
    {eval(as.call(c(quote(group_by),quote(.), group_var)))} %>%
    {eval(bquote(summarise(.,.(mean_name) := mean(.(select_var)))))}
}

my_summarise02(d, z, x, y)
#> # A tibble: 5 x 3
#> # Groups:   x [3]
#>       x      y mean_z
#>       
#> 1     1 -1.21   0.694
#> 2     1  0.277  0.545
#> 3     2 -2.35   0.923
#> 4     2  1.08   0.283
#> 5     3  0.429  0.292

solving Tung's 2nd case with base R but using !! and !!!

grouping_vars <- c(quote(x), quote(y))

d %>%
  group_by(!!!grouping_vars) %>%
  summarise(mean_z = mean(z))
#> # A tibble: 5 x 3
#> # Groups:   x [3]
#>       x      y mean_z
#>       
#> 1     1 -1.21   0.694
#> 2     1  0.277  0.545
#> 3     2 -2.35   0.923
#> 4     2  1.08   0.283
#> 5     3  0.429  0.292

in a function :

my_summarise03 <- function(df, select_var, ...) {

  group_var  <- eval(substitute(alist(...)))
  select_var <- substitute(select_var)

  # create new name
  mean_name <- paste0("mean_", as.character(select_var))

  df %>%
    select(!!select_var, !!!group_var) %>% 
    group_by(!!!group_var) %>%
    summarise(.,!!mean_name := mean(!!select_var))
}

my_summarise03(d, z, x, y)
#> # A tibble: 5 x 3
#> # Groups:   x [3]
#>       x      y mean_z
#>       
#> 1     1 -1.21   0.694
#> 2     1  0.277  0.545
#> 3     2 -2.35   0.923
#> 4     2  1.08   0.283
#> 5     3  0.429  0.292