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

modify_depth(x, 2, fun) is not equivalent to x[] <- map(x, ~ map(., fun)) when deepest level is a vector #359

Closed
mir-cat opened this Issue Aug 3, 2017 · 1 comment

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@mir-cat
Copy link

mir-cat commented Aug 3, 2017

Example:


list_of_vectors <- list(one = c(1, 2, 3), two = c(4, 5, 6))

purrr::map(list_of_vectors, ~purrr::map(., ~.+1))
#> $one
#> $one[[1]]
#> [1] 2
#> 
#> $one[[2]]
#> [1] 3
#> 
#> $one[[3]]
#> [1] 4
#> 
#> 
#> $two
#> $two[[1]]
#> [1] 5
#> 
#> $two[[2]]
#> [1] 6
#> 
#> $two[[3]]
#> [1] 7

purrr::modify_depth(list_of_vectors, 2, ~.+1)
#> Error: List not deep enough

I think at_depth used to not give this error in this same context. I feel that modify_depth is working exactly as intended, but it is still confusing that it should be so easy to construct a case that explicitly contradicts the documentation for the modify_depth documentation. Maybe map shouldn't work on vectors as well?

@hadley

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member

hadley commented Feb 5, 2018

Could you please rework your reproducible example to use the reprex package ? That makes it easier to see both the input and the output, formatted in such a way that I can easily re-run in a local session.

@hadley hadley added the reprex label Feb 5, 2018

@mir-cat mir-cat changed the title modify_depth(x, 2, fun) is not equivalent to x[] <- map(x, ~ map(., fun)) when there is a vector in the list modify_depth(x, 2, fun) is not equivalent to x[] <- map(x, ~ map(., fun)) when deepest level is a vector Feb 5, 2018

@hadley hadley added bug map 🗺 and removed reprex labels May 5, 2018

lionel- added a commit to lionel-/lowliner that referenced this issue Dec 6, 2018

@lionel- lionel- closed this in #596 Dec 6, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment