This is a 'why' question and not a 'How to' question.
I have a tibble as a result of an aggregation dplyr
> str(urls)
Classes ‘tbl_df’, ‘tbl’ and 'data.frame': 144 obs. of 4 variables:
$ BRAND : chr "Bobbi Brown" "Calvin Klein" "Chanel" "Clarins" ...
$ WEBSITE : chr "http://www.bobbibrowncosmetics.com/" "http://www.calvinklein.com/shop/en/ck" "http://www.chanel.com/en_US/" "http://www.clarinsusa.com/" ...
$ domain : chr "bobbibrowncosmetics.com/" "calvinklein.com/shop/en/ck" "chanel.com/en_US/" "clarinsusa.com/" ...
$ final_domain: chr "bobbibrowncosmetics.com/" "calvinklein.com/shop/en/ck" "chanel.com/en_US/" "clarinsusa.com/" ...
When I try to extract the column final_domain as a character vector here's what happens:
> length(as.character(urls[ ,4]))
[1] 1
When I instead, coerce to data frame and then do it, I get what I actually want:
> length(as.character(as.data.frame(urls)[ ,4]))
[1] 144
The str of the tibble vs. dataframe looks the same but output differs. I'm wondering why?
The underlying reason is that subsetting a tbl and a data frame produces different results when only one column is selected.
- By default,
[.data.frame will drop the dimensions if the result has only 1 column, similar to how matrix subsetting works. So the result is a vector.
[.tbl_df will never drop dimensions like this; it always returns a tbl.
In turn, as.character ignores the class of a tbl, treating it as a plain list. And as.character called on a list acts like deparse: the character representation it returns is R code that can be parsed and executed to reproduce the list.
The tbl behaviour is arguably the right thing to do in most circumstances, because dropping dimensions can easily lead to bugs: subsetting a data frame usually results in another data frame, but sometimes it doesn't. In this specific case it doesn't do what you want.
If you want to extract a column from a tbl as a vector, you can use list-style indexing: urls[[4]] or urls$final_domain.
I think the fundamental answer to your question is that Hadley Wickham, when writing tibble 1.0, wanted consistent behavior of the [ operator. This decision is discussed, somewhat indirectly, in Wickham's Advanced R in the chapter on Subsetting:
It’s important to understand the distinction between simplifying and
preserving subsetting. Simplifying subsets returns the simplest
possible data structure that can represent the output, and is useful
interactively because it usually gives you what you want. Preserving
subsetting keeps the structure of the output the same as the input,
and is generally better for programming because the result will always
be the same type. Omitting drop = FALSE when subsetting matrices and
data frames is one of the most common sources of programming errors.
(It will work for your test cases, but then someone will pass in a
single column data frame and it will fail in an unexpected and unclear
way.)
Here, we can clearly see that Hadley is concerned with the inconsistent default behavior of [.data.frame, and why he would choose to change the behavior in tibble.
With the above terminology in mind, it's easy to see that whether the [.data.frame operator produces a simplifying subset or a preserving subset by default is dependent on the input rather than the programming. e.g., take a data frame data_df and subset it:
data_df <- data.frame(a = runif(10), b = letters[1:10])
data_df[, 2]
data_df[, 1:2]
You get a vector in one case and a data frame in the other. To predict the type of output, you have to either know in advance how many columns are going to be subsetted (i.e. you have to know length(list_of_columns)), which may come from user input, or you need to explicitly add the drop = parameter. So the following produces the same class of object, but the added parameter is unnecessary in the second case (and may be unknown to the majority of R users):
data_df[, 2, drop = FALSE]
data_df[, 1:2, drop = FALSE]
With tibble (or dplyr), we have consistent behavior by default, so we can be assured of having the same class of object when subsetting with the [ operator no matter how many columns we return:
library(tibble)
data_df <- tibble(a = runif(10), b = letters[1:10])
data_df[, 2]
data_df[, 1:2]
If you print the result of as.character, you'll notice the difference:
library(tibble)
x <- tribble(
~x, ~y, ~z,
"a", 2, 3.6,
"b", 1, 8.5
)
as.character(as.data.frame(x)[ ,2])
# [1] "2" "1"
as.character(x[ ,2])
# "c(2, 1)"
as.character converts the column to a single string. This thread should be helpful: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21618423/extract-a-dplyr-tbl-column-as-a-vector
