p to fig

[plotly]

p to fig

[nicolaskruchten]

@rpkyle @sacul-git @HammadTheOne any strong feelings here?

[sacul-git]

@nicolaskruchten is this just for readability? I personally tend to use something along the lines of the original example, creating the fig in one go rather than creating it and overwriting, but what are the disadvantages to having something like this in the documentation?

fig <- plot_ly(x = ~s, y = ~s) %>%
    layout(xaxis = a, yaxis = a)
fig

[HammadTheOne]

I don't feel too strongly about it, but from a user standpoint, the rewritten version might be better to follow for individuals who aren't as familiar with the tidyverse. In their style guide they actually recommend using shorter pipes for readability, so the rewrite is a better option from that standpoint.

[nicolaskruchten]

@sacul-git the idea is to more clearly break out the various steps for users, so they can copy-paste individual lines into their script more easily:

fig <- plot_ly(x = ~s, y = ~s)  # create fig
fig <- fig %>% layout(xaxis = a, yaxis = a)  # mutate fig
fig # display fig

[nicolaskruchten]

agreed on that on the command-line you would likely just use the pipe without any assignment :)

[rpkyle]

For posterity's sake, just noting here that I made a comment along the lines of what @sacul-git said above to @nicolaskruchten, but the explanation (being able to easily copy the line and reuse) makes a lot of sense, so I have no objections to this syntax personally.