Several bugs are present in R-2.15.3 and R-alpha due to naive copying of list elements. The bug below is due to naive copying in subset.c (with similar bugs for matrices and arrays): a<-list(c(1,2),c(3,4),c(5,6)) b<-a[2:3] a[[2]][2]<-9 print(b[[1]][2]) Naive copying in mapply.c leads to the following bug: X<-1+1 f<-function(a,b) X A<-mapply(f,c(1,2,3),c(4,5,6),SIMPLIFY=FALSE) print(A) X[1]<-99 print(A) Similar bugs exist in eapply, rapply, and vapply.
On Mar 12, 2013, at 3:59 AM, Radford Neal wrote:> Several bugs are present in R-2.15.3 and R-alpha due to > naive copying of list elements. > > The bug below is due to naive copying in subset.c (with > similar bugs for matrices and arrays): > > a<-list(c(1,2),c(3,4),c(5,6)) > b<-a[2:3] > a[[2]][2]<-9 > print(b[[1]][2])This is an example of lazy evaluation, right?> > Naive copying in mapply.c leads to the following bug: > > X<-1+1 > f<-function(a,b) X > A<-mapply(f,c(1,2,3),c(4,5,6),SIMPLIFY=FALSE) > print(A) > X[1]<-99 > print(A) >Is this a bug in mapply()? or in print()? I thought 'print' should evaluate its argument and "force" the promise to be executed. Or does it just return the same promise as was passed to it? Compare: X<-1+1 f<-function(a,b) X A<-mapply(f,c(1,2,3),c(4,5,6),SIMPLIFY=FALSE) print(A); str(A) X[1]<-99 print(A) Could someone could comment on what 'force' actually does. I am unclear why force(A) in the code above in the pace of str(A) did not have the effect I expected, whereas str(b) or str(A) did have that effect.> a<-list(c(1,2),c(3,4),c(5,6)) > b<-a[2:3]; force(b)[[1]] [1] 3 4 [[2]] [1] 5 6> a[[2]][2]<-9 > print(b[[1]][2])[1] 9 #----------> X<-1+1 > f<-function(a,b) X > A<-mapply(f,c(1,2,3),c(4,5,6),SIMPLIFY=FALSE) > print(A); force(A)[[1]] [1] 2 [[2]] [1] 2 [[3]] [1] 2 [[1]] [1] 2 [[2]] [1] 2 [[3]] [1] 2> X[1]<-99 > print(A)[[1]] [1] 99 [[2]] [1] 99 [[3]] [1] 99> Similar bugs exist in eapply, rapply, and vapply. >-- David Winsemius Alameda, CA, USA
luke-tierney at uiowa.edu
2013-Mar-12 20:41 UTC
[Rd] Bugs due to naive copying of list elements
Thanks for the report. Fixed in r62220 on trunk, r62221 on R-3-0-branch, and r62222 on R-2-15-branch. Best, luke On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, Radford Neal wrote:> Several bugs are present in R-2.15.3 and R-alpha due to > naive copying of list elements. > > The bug below is due to naive copying in subset.c (with > similar bugs for matrices and arrays): > > a<-list(c(1,2),c(3,4),c(5,6)) > b<-a[2:3] > a[[2]][2]<-9 > print(b[[1]][2]) > > Naive copying in mapply.c leads to the following bug: > > X<-1+1 > f<-function(a,b) X > A<-mapply(f,c(1,2,3),c(4,5,6),SIMPLIFY=FALSE) > print(A) > X[1]<-99 > print(A) > > Similar bugs exist in eapply, rapply, and vapply. > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >-- Luke Tierney Chair, Statistics and Actuarial Science Ralph E. Wareham Professor of Mathematical Sciences University of Iowa Phone: 319-335-3386 Department of Statistics and Fax: 319-335-3017 Actuarial Science 241 Schaeffer Hall email: luke-tierney at uiowa.edu Iowa City, IA 52242 WWW: http://www.stat.uiowa.edu
Possibly Parallel Threads
- iterated lapply
- inconsistency in treatment of USE.NAMES argument
- Is there a summary on different version of 'apply' functions? What is the meaning of the prefixes?
- inconsistency in treatment of USE.NAMES argument
- Integration of functions with a vector argument