Quoting and Macros in R Quoting and Macros in R
Miles McBain has a nice post about quoting in R and the tidyeval procedure. In it, there’s this footnote In truth there are other... Quoting and Macros in R

Miles McBain has a nice post about quoting in R and the tidyeval procedure. In it, there’s this footnote

In truth there are other types of calls, and the ones Lisp nuts really bang on about are macro calls

In this post I want to talk about the similarities between the tidyversatile approach to quasiquoting and the base-R approach, as an introduction to banging on about macro calls.

First, though, a relevant quote from Lewis Carroll

“It’s long,” said the Knight, “but it’s very, very beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it – either it brings the tears to their eyes, or else -”

“Or else what?” said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.

“Or else it doesn’t, you know. The name of the song is called ‘Haddocks’ Eyes.’”

“Oh, that’s the name of the song, is it?” Alice said, trying to feel interested.

“No, you don’t understand,” the Knight said, looking a little vexed. “That’s what the name is called. The name really is ‘The Aged Aged Man.’”

The basic idea of quoting in code is the same as in logic: you want to be able to refer to use a thing, or the name of the thing, or what the name of the thing is called, or…

Suppose we have

aged_aged_man <- rnorm(1000)

binding a name to a vector of numbers. If we want the mean of the vector we can pass the vector to a function

## [1] 0.01513496

If we want to make life difficult, we could pass the name of the vector to a function and have the function find the variable by its name. One way to do this is to use a character string for the name

mean_by_name_string<-function(name_of_x) {
 x<- get(name_of_x, mode="numeric")
## [1] 0.01513496

That works, but it’s limited and ugly: you can pass "x" but not "x+1". Also, if you have a variable, you need to convert its name back into a string.

Another way is using the magic of R’s lazy evaluation and promises

mean_by_name<-function(name_of_x) {
 name_of_x_is_called<- substitute(name_of_x)
 mean_code <- bquote(mean(.(name_of_x_is_called)))
## mean(aged_aged_man)
## [1] 0.01513496

The substitute() function grabs an argument and extracts the unevaluated expression that went into it. According to the lies-to-children version of R syntax that shouldn’t be possible: R passes arguments by value, and the expression is gone to whereever expresions go when they’re evaluated. In reality, to allow for lazy evaluation, R has a special data structure called a promise, which stores the expression until you look at it then evaluates it. R also has substitute() to get the expression out of the promise.

If you’ve ever wondered how plot axes get labelled with the expressions you pass as arguments (rather than with their values), this is the explanation. Inside many plotting functions you’ll find a line like


to retrieve the expression that’s going to be x and turn it into a character string.

The tidyversatile version is

## Warning: package 'rlang' was built under R version 3.4.4
mean_by_tidyname<-function(name_of_x) {
 name_of_x_is_called <- enexpr(name_of_x)
 mean_code <- expr(mean(!!name_of_x_is_called))
## mean(aged_aged_man)
## [1] 0.01513496

Here, enexpr() does the equivalent of substitute()

More often, you’d want to pass a data frame and the name of an element of it

looking_glass <- data.frame(aged_aged_man=rnorm(1000), tweedledum=1:1000, tweedledee=1000:1)
mean_by_name_df<-function(data, name_of_x) {
 name_of_x_is_called<- substitute(name_of_x)
 mean_code <- bquote(mean(.(name_of_x_is_called)))
 eval(mean_code, data)
mean_by_name_df(looking_glass, aged_aged_man)
## [1] 0.03537387

Or, the new way

mean_by_name_tidyf<-function(data, name_of_x) {
 name_of_x_is_called<- enexpr(name_of_x)
 mean_code <- expr(mean(!!name_of_x_is_called))
 eval_tidy(mean_code, data)
mean_by_name_tidyf(looking_glass, aged_aged_man)
## [1] 0.03537387

The tidyverse version is the same here, but the tidyverse adds some useful extra twiddles (like the ability to use a ~ instead of = to get around R syntax) and a couple of important features: the unquote-and-splice operator !!! that unquotes each element of a list into an argument list, and quosures, which capture the environment of an expression the way R functions (‘closures’) and model formulas do.

If you look at the bquote function you can see what’s going a bit more easily than in the rlang package

## function (expr, where = parent.frame()) 
## {
##     unquote <- function(e) if (is.pairlist(e)) 
##         as.pairlist(lapply(e, unquote))
##     else if (length(e) <= 1L) 
##         e
##     else if (e[[1L]] == as.name(".")) 
##         eval(e[[2L]], where)
##     else as.call(lapply(e, unquote))
##     unquote(substitute(expr))
## }
## <bytecode: 0x7fb3dff91320>
## <environment: namespace:base>

Apart from the use of substitute() to grab the expression, it’s just a straightforward tree traversal algorithm: the expression is structured as a tree (the abstract syntax tree or parse tree), and bquote() walks down it. It’s limited by being written in pure R and by the fact I wasn’t willing to invent new syntax to make it work – that’s why it doesn’t have an analogue of mutate((!!names)~(!!values)) and why it doesn’t have unquote-and-splice.

The tidyverse and base approaches both use some magic to get hold of a parsed but unevaluated expression, in tree form, then do relatively comprehensible operations on it. The magic is needed because R doesn’t have macros. If you’ve programmed with other statistical software you probably encountered macros and likely were unimpressed: one of R’s selling points is that it has real functions, not just macros. It’s true that if you had to pick one of the two, functions would probably be better than macros. But in Lisp-like languages you get both.

Both macros and functions let you pass arguments to code. They differ in how and when the arguments are inserted. In Lisp, functions get the values of their arguments at run-time, whereas macros get their (unevaluated) arguments at compile-time. That is, mean(aged_aged_man) as a function will evaluate aged_aged_man and use the value inside mean as the value of the first argument of the function (x, in this case). As a macro, it would replace x with aged_aged_man in the text of the function before doing any evaluation. For quasiquotation, this search-and-replace operation is exactly what we want. We want to replace our place-holder argument name with the user-supplied variable name and then evaluate the resulting code. It’s also what we’d ideally want for base R functions such as with() and capture.output(), and for hypothetical R functions such as with_options() and with_graphical_pars() that would temporarily set parameters. In fact, the Common Lisp version of capture.output()is a macro called with-output-to-string.

We don’t have this option in R, but we can fake it using lazy evaluation, as tidyeval does. Back in 2001 I wrote a short article for the then R Newsletter on how (and possibly why) to define macros in R. Realistically, this falls under cool-but-useless, but if you’ve made it this far, you might be interested in reading it.


Original Source

Thomas Lumley

Thomas Lumley

Thomas Lumley attended Monash University (B.Sc.(Hons) in Pure Mathematics), the University of Oxford (M.Sc. in Applied Statistics) and the University of Washington, Seattle (PhD in Biostatistics). He spent twelve years on the faculty of the Department of Biostatistics at the University of Washington, and then moved to Auckland in 2010. He is still an Affiliate Professor at the University of Washington.