You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to share a suggestion regarding the usage of the pipe operator in your code. I noticed that the %>% operator from the magrittr package is used a few times in your code, specifically around 3 instances in the wbstats::wb_data function.
Considering that the |> operator was introduced in R 4.1.0, I wanted to suggest replacing %>% with |> in your code. This could potentially allow you to reduce your dependence on the magrittr package.
Furthermore, I came across a discussion here that highlights the performance benefits of using the |> operator compared to %>%. It seems that |> is faster, which might be advantageous for your code.
I understand that the wbstats package relies on R (≥ 3.2), so I'm not entirely sure how this change might impact the overall package. However, I wanted to bring this to your attention as a possible improvement worth considering.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello Jesse Piburn,
I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to share a suggestion regarding the usage of the pipe operator in your code. I noticed that the
%>%
operator from themagrittr
package is used a few times in your code, specifically around 3 instances in thewbstats::wb_data
function.Considering that the
|>
operator was introduced in R 4.1.0, I wanted to suggest replacing%>%
with|>
in your code. This could potentially allow you to reduce your dependence on themagrittr
package.Furthermore, I came across a discussion here that highlights the performance benefits of using the
|>
operator compared to%>%
. It seems that|>
is faster, which might be advantageous for your code.I understand that the
wbstats
package relies on R (≥ 3.2), so I'm not entirely sure how this change might impact the overall package. However, I wanted to bring this to your attention as a possible improvement worth considering.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: