> I was thrown off by the fact that after mutating it looked like the column
> data type had been changed.
It was changed... in a new copy of the data frame that, because it was at the
top-level interactive prompt and not being saved, was printed and then
discarded.
On July 25, 2020 5:11:03 P
On 07/25/2020 04:17 PM, Jeff Newmiller wrote:
> False. Mutate is similar in structure to the base function `within`. Which is
> why you have to assign the altered data frame back onto itself.
>
> On July 25, 2020 12:59:06 PM PDT, "Patrick (Malone Quantitative)"
> wrote:
>> Jeff,
>>
>> mutate(),
Were you thinking of the %<>% operator? That's a magrittr thing, where
x %<>% y acts like x <- x %>% y .
Duncan Murdoch
On 25/07/2020 4:18 p.m., Patrick (Malone Quantitative) wrote:
Oh, right--I puzzled out my mistake.
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 4:17 PM Jeff Newmiller
wrote:
False. Mutate is
Oh, right--I puzzled out my mistake.
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 4:17 PM Jeff Newmiller
wrote:
> False. Mutate is similar in structure to the base function `within`. Which
> is why you have to assign the altered data frame back onto itself.
>
> On July 25, 2020 12:59:06 PM PDT, "Patrick (Malone Quan
False. Mutate is similar in structure to the base function `within`. Which is
why you have to assign the altered data frame back onto itself.
On July 25, 2020 12:59:06 PM PDT, "Patrick (Malone Quantitative)"
wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>mutate(), which is I think part of dplyr, also violates this, for what
Jeff,
mutate(), which is I think part of dplyr, also violates this, for what it's
worth. I suspect the breaking point is that mutate() is intended to create
new columns in the dataframe, not alter existing ones.
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 3:52 PM Jeff Newmiller
wrote:
> R is largely a functional l
R is largely a functional language. You do something to an input and end up
with an output that has no effect on the input. This is actually a highly
desirable feature.
If you want your df variable to reflect changes made then you need to assign
your result back into it.
df <- df %>% mutate(v
This seems needlessly complicated.
df$v1 <- as.double(df$v1)
Or as.numeric()
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 3:31 PM H wrote:
> In a statement like:
>
> df %>% mutate(v1 = as.double(v1))
>
> I expect the variable v1 in dataframe df to have been converted into a
> double. However, when I do:
>
> str(df
In a statement like:
df %>% mutate(v1 = as.double(v1))
I expect the variable v1 in dataframe df to have been converted into a double.
However, when I do:
str(df)
v1 still shows as int. Do I need to save the modified dataframe after mutating
a variable?
___
9 matches
Mail list logo
