R help - Feb 2003 - pairlists (was: data manipulation function descriptions)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luke Tierney [mailto:luke at stat.uiowa.edu]
> R does not provide a pairlist data structure. This creates a dilemma
> when translating some list-based xlispstat code, or, more
> importantly, when implementing an algorithm for which parilists are
> the natural data structure to use.
> ...
> Pairlists were and still are used internally for many things. 
> ...
Wouldn't it, therefore, make sense to provide a 'pairlist' package
which
exposes the internal pairlist structure and provides appropriate functions
(car, cdr, ...), instead of expecting people to keep re-implementing these
features?

-Greg


LEGAL NOTICE\ Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is ... [[dropped]]

"Warnes, Gregory R" <gregory_r_warnes at groton.pfizer.com>
writes:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Luke Tierney [mailto:luke at stat.uiowa.edu]
> 
> > R does not provide a pairlist data structure. This creates a dilemma
> > when translating some list-based xlispstat code, or, more
> > importantly, when implementing an algorithm for which parilists are
> > the natural data structure to use.
> > ...
> > Pairlists were and still are used internally for many things. 
> > ...
> 
> Wouldn't it, therefore, make sense to provide a 'pairlist'
package which
> exposes the internal pairlist structure and provides appropriate functions
> (car, cdr, ...), instead of expecting people to keep re-implementing these
> features?
Some ancient consideration pops up here. We do actually expose
pairlists in a few places (try mode(.Options)). Some people consider
that this is a remnant and should be stamped out, but we might also
consider doing what you suggest. 

The big problem with old R was not so much the pairlists but that they
were used for representing objects of mode "list" so to get to X[[n]]
you had to count through the list from the beginning which killed
performance in some important cases. Then again, adding elements to a
generic vector requires copying the whole thing. Of course all the
legacy S code tended to do the former and not the latter, so generic
vectors ended up winning.

One or two reservations: With full lisp style access, could we end up
with (circular) data structures that confuse the garbage collector?
And might we -- supposing we allowed destructive list modifications --
end up with strange semantics a la the .Alias mess we had for a while?
Of course Luke would be the first to know about this.

Then of course there is the question of reverse compatibility. I don't
consider it much of a loss if R code doesn't run in Splus, but others
might.

-- 
   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Blegdamsvej 3  
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     2200 Cph. N   
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk)             FAX: (+45) 35327907