Tidy evaluation

knitr::opts_chunk$set(collapse = T, comment = "#>") library("rlang") Tidy evaluation is is a general toolkit for non-standard evaluation, principally used to create domain-specific languages of grammars. The most prominent examples of such sublanguages in R are modelling specifications with formulas (lm(), lme4::lmer(), etc) and data manipulation grammars (dplyr, tidyr). Most of these DSLs put dataframe columns in scope so that users can refer to them directly, saving keystrokes during interactive analysis and creating easily readable code. R makes it easy to create DSLs thanks to three features of the language: • R code is first-class. That is, R code can be manipulated like any other object (see sym(), lang(), and node()). We use the term expression (see is_expr()) to refer to objects that are created by parsing R code. • Scope is first-class. Scope is the lexical environment that associates values to symbols in expressions. Unlike like most languages, environments can be created (see env()) and manipulated as regular objects. • Finally, functions can capture the expressions that were supplied as arguments instead of being passed the value of these expressions (see enquo() and enexpr()). R functions can capture expressions, manipulate them like regular objects, and alter the meaning of symbols referenced in these expressions by changing the scope (the environment) in which they are evaluated. This combination of features allow R packages to change the meaning of R code and create domain-specific sublanguages. Tidy evaluation is an opinionated way to use these features to create consistent DSLs. The main principle is that sublanguages should feel and behave like R code. They change the meaning of R code, but only in a precise and circumscribed way, behaving otherwise predictably and in accordance with R semantics. As a result, users are be able to leverage their existing knowledge of R programming to solve problems involving the sublanguage in ways that were not necessarily envisioned or planned by their designers. Parsing versus evaluation There are two ways of dealing with unevaluated expressions to create a sublanguage. The first is to parse the expression and modify it, and the other is to leave the expression as is and evaluate it in a modified environment. Let's take the example of designing a modelling DSL to illustrate parsing. You would need to traverse the call and analyse all functions encountered in the expression (in particular, operators like + or :), building a data structure describing a model as you go. This method of dealing with expressions is complex, rigid, and error prone because you're basically writing an interpreter for R code. It is extremely difficult to emulate R semantics when parsing an expression: does a function take arguments by value or by expression? Can I parse these arguments? Do these symbols mean the same thing in this context? Will this argument be evaluated immediately or later on lazily? Given the difficulty of getting it right, parsing should be a last resort. The second way is to rely on evaluation in a specific environment. The expression is evaluated in an environment where certain objects and functions are given special definitions. For instance + might be defined as accumulating vectors in a data structure to build a design matrix later on, or we might put helper functions in scope (an example is dplyr::select()). As this method is relying on the R interpreter, the grammar is much more likely to behave like real R code. R DSLs are traditionally implemented with a mix of both principles. Expressions are parsed in ad hoc ways, but are eventually evaluated in an environment containing dataframe columns. While it is difficult to completely avoid ad hoc parsing, tidyeval DSLs strive to rely on evaluation as much as possible. Values versus expressions A corollary of emphasising evaluation is that your DSL functions should understand values in addition to expressions. This is especially important with [quasiquotation][quasiquotation]: users can bypass symbolic evaluation completely by unquoting values. For instance, the following expressions are completely equivalent: # Taking an expression: dplyr::mutate(mtcars, cyl2 = cyl * 2) # Taking a value: var <- mtcars$cyl * 2 dplyr::mutate(mtcars, cyl2 = !! var)

dplyr::mutate() evaluates expressions in a context where dataframe columns are in scope, but it accepts any value that can be treated as a column (a recycled scalar or a vector as long as there are rows).

A more complex example is dplyr::select(). This function evaluates dataframe columns in a context where they represent column positions. Therefore, select() understands column symbols like cyl:

# Taking a symbol: dplyr::select(mtcars, cyl) # Taking an unquoted symbol: var <- quote(sym) dplyr::select(mtcars, !! var)

But it also understands column positions:

# Taking a column position: dplyr::select(mtcars, 2) # Taking an unquoted column position: var <- 2 dplyr::select(mtcars, !! var)

Understanding values in addition to expressions makes your grammar more consistent, predictable, and programmable.

Tidy scoping

The special type of scoping found in R grammars implemented with evaluation poses some challenges. Both objects from a dataset and objects from the current environment should be in scope, with the former having precedence over the latter. In other words, the dataset should overscope the dynamic context. The traditional solution to this issue in R is to transform a dataframe to an environment and set the calling frame as the parent environment. This way, the symbols appearing in the expression can refer to their surrounding context in addition to dataframe columns. In other words, the grammar implements correctly an important aspect of R: lexical scoping.

Creating this scope hierarchy (data first, context next) is possible because R makes it easy to capture the calling environment (see [caller_env()]). However, this supposes that captured expressions were actually typed in the most immediate caller frame. This assumption easily breaks in R. First because quasiquotation allows an user to combine expressions that do not necessarily come from the same lexical context. Secondly because arguments can be forwarded through the special ... argument. While base R does not provide any way of capturing a forwarded argument along with its original environment, rlang features [quos()] for this purpose. This function looks up each forwarded arguments and returns a list of [quosures][quosure] that bundle the expressions with their own dynamic environments.

In that context, maintaining scoping consistency is a challenge because we're dealing with multiple environments, one for each argument plus one containing the overscoped data. This creates difficulties regarding tidyeval's overarching principle that we should change R semantics through evaluation. It is possible to evaluate each expression in turn, but how can we combine all expressions into one and evaluate it tidily at once? An expression can only be evaluated in a single environment. This is where quosures come into play.

Quosures and overscoping

Unlike formulas, quosures aren't simple containers of an expression and an environment. In the tidyeval framework, they have the property of self-evaluating in their own environment. Hence they can appear anywhere in an expression (e.g. by being unquoted), carrying their own environment and behaving otherwise exactly like surrounding R code. Quosures behave like reified promises that are unreified during tidy evaluation.

However, the dynamic environments of quosures do not contain overscoped data. It's not of much use for sublanguages to get the contextual environment right if they can't also change the meaning of code quoted in quosures. To solve this issue, tidyeval rechains the overscope to a quosure just before it self-evaluates. This way, both the lexical environment and the overscoped data are in scope when the quosure is evaluated. It is evaluated tidily.

In practical terms, eval_tidy() takes a data argument and creates an overscope suitable for tidy evaluation. In particular, these overscopes contain definitions for self-evaluation of quosures. See [evaltidy()] and [as_overscope] for more flexible ways of creating overscopes.

Theory

The most important concept of the tidy evaluation framework is that expressions should be scoped in their dynamic context. This issue is linked to the computer science concept of hygiene, which roughly means that symbols should be scoped in their local context, the context where they are typed by the user. In a way, hygiene is what "tidy" refers to in "tidy evaluation".

In languages with macros, hygiene comes up for macro expansion. While macros look like R's non-standard evaluation functions, and share certain concepts with them (in particular, they get their arguments as unevaluated code), they are actually quite different. Macros are compile-time and therefore can only operate on code and constants, never on user data. They also don't return a value but are expanded in place by the compiler. In comparison, R does not have macros but it has fexprs, i.e. regular functions that get arguments as unevaluated expressions rather than by their value (fexprs are what we call NSE functions in the R community). Unlike macros, these functions execute at run-time and return a value.

Symbolic hygiene is a problem for macros during expansion because expanded code might invisibly redefine surrounding symbols. Correspondingly, hygiene is an issue for NSE functions if the code they captured gets evaluated in the wrong environment. Historically, fexprs did not have this problem because they existed in languages with dynamic scoping. However in modern languages with lexical scoping, it is imperative to bundle quoted expressions with their dynamic environment. The most natural way to do this in R is to use formulas and quosures.

While formulas were introduced in the S language, the quosure was invented much later for R by Luke Tierney in 2000. From that point on formulas recorded their environment along with the model terms. In the Lisp world, the Kernel Lisp language also recognised that arguments should be captured together with their dynamic environment in order to solve hygienic evaluation in the context of lexically scoped languages (see chapter 5 of John Schutt's thesis). However, Kernel Lisp did not have quosures and avoided quotation or quasiquotation operators altogether to avoid scoping issues.

Tidyeval contributes to the problem of hygienic evaluation in four ways:

• Promoting the quosure as the proper quotation data structure, in order to keep track of the dynamic environment of quoted expressions.

• Introducing systematic quasiquotation in all capturing functions in order to make it straightforward to program with these functions.

• Treating quosures as reified promises that self-evaluate within their own environments. This allows unquoting quosures within other quosures, which is the key for programming hygienically with capturing functions.

• Building a moving overscope that rechains to quosures as they get evaluated. This makes it possible to change the evaluation context and at the same time take the lexical context of each quosure into account.