On 03/03/15 15:04, Jeff Newmiller wrote:> Your example is decidedly not expressed in R, though it looks like > you tried. Can you provide the hand-computed result that you are > trying to obtain? > > Note that the reason you cannot find anything about next or break in > R is that they don't exist.Point of order, Mr. Chairman, but they ***do*** exist. See e.g ?"next" (which actually takes you to the help for "Control Flow").> There are generally alternative ways to > accomplish the kinds of things you might want to accomplish without > them, and those alternatives often don't involve explicit loops at > all.Otherwise I concur with everything you say. cheers, Rolf -- Rolf Turner Technical Editor ANZJS Department of Statistics University of Auckland Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276 Home phone: +64-9-480-4619
Sigh. To be positive is to be wrong at the top of one's lungs. Next I will
be told R has a goto statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Newmiller The ..... ..... Go Live...
DCN:<jdnewmil at dcn.davis.ca.us> Basics: ##.#. ##.#. Live
Go...
Live: OO#.. Dead: OO#.. Playing
Research Engineer (Solar/Batteries O.O#. #.O#. with
/Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#. .OO#. rocks...1k
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.
On March 2, 2015 6:23:57 PM PST, Rolf Turner <r.turner at auckland.ac.nz>
wrote:>On 03/03/15 15:04, Jeff Newmiller wrote:
>> Your example is decidedly not expressed in R, though it looks like
>> you tried. Can you provide the hand-computed result that you are
>> trying to obtain?
>>
>> Note that the reason you cannot find anything about next or break in
>> R is that they don't exist.
>
>Point of order, Mr. Chairman, but they ***do*** exist. See e.g
?"next"
>
>(which actually takes you to the help for "Control Flow").
>
>> There are generally alternative ways to
>> accomplish the kinds of things you might want to accomplish without
>> them, and those alternatives often don't involve explicit loops at
>> all.
>
>Otherwise I concur with everything you say.
>
>cheers,
>
>Rolf
On 03/03/15 16:08, Jeff Newmiller wrote:> Sigh. To be positive is to be wrong at the top of one's lungs. Next I > will be told R has a goto statement.I am ***positive*** that it hasn't! :-) Well, 99.999% confident. Although I guess it's not inconceivable that some misguided nerd might construct one. In R all things are possible. It'd be tough, but, in view of the fact that "statements" are not identified/identifiable in R so it would be hard to tell the code, uh, where to go. cheers, Rolf -- Rolf Turner Technical Editor ANZJS Department of Statistics University of Auckland Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276 Home phone: +64-9-480-4619