In R 4.1 a native pipe operator was introduced that is "more streamlined" than previous implementations. See this post about it.

This is a question inspired by the thread "What are the differences between R's new native pipe |> and the magrittr pipe %>%?".

I will leave aside the magritter pipe where a %>% b(...) is most commonly used to denote {. <- a; b(., ...)} (with dot side effects hidden) because it is clearly different.

I found this thread helpful in understanding the |> does "just" functional composition with no discernible overhead.

The old native pipe ->.; is lengthy but works perfectly for functional composition.
The old native pipe ->.; is composed of:

• -> assignment,
• . variable,
• ; statement end

Both seem practically the same for usual purposes.

1:3 |> sum()
#> [1] 6
1:3 ->.; sum(.)
#> [1] 6

The old native pipe uses dot placeholder.

mtcars ->.;
 lm(mpg ~ disp, data = .)
#> 
#> Call:
#> lm(formula = mpg ~ disp, data = .)
#> 
#> Coefficients:
#> (Intercept)         disp  
#>    29.59985     -0.04122

The new native pipe doesn’t have a placeholder.

mtcars |> 
  lm(mpg ~ disp, data = .)
#> Error in is.data.frame(data): object '.' not found

mtcars |> 
  lm(mpg ~ disp)
#> Error in as.data.frame.default(data): cannot coerce class '"formula"' to a data.frame

This means you have to do function declaration gymnastics to make it work when you don't want to pipe into the first unnamed argument.

mtcars |> 
  (function(x) lm(mpg ~ disp, data = x))()
#> 
#> Call:
#> lm(formula = mpg ~ disp, data = x)
#> 
#> Coefficients:
#> (Intercept)         disp  
#>    29.59985     -0.04122

mtcars |> 
  (\(x) lm(mpg ~ disp, data = x))()         # alternative new function-creation syntax 
#> 
#> Call:
#> lm(formula = mpg ~ disp, data = x)
#> 
#> Coefficients:
#> (Intercept)         disp  
#>    29.59985     -0.04122

I really want to understand the new pipe and its utility.

• Are there any useful patterns you found that are facilitated by |>?
• Does the development of => operator that is "available but not active" change the prospects for |>?
• When needing only functional composition why don't we use the old pipe ->.;? Why is it so underutilized, while the new |> gets all the love?

I love R and I would like to love its newer developments. This is why I need to understand. Any insightful answers are welcome.