similar to: Making custom unary operators in R

On 10/11/2006 2:48 PM, Seth Falcon wrote: > Hi, > > Reading help("Documentation"), I'm led to believe that a help call > like: > > ?myFun(x, sqrt(wt)) > > Will search for help on the appropriate method in the case that myFun > is generic. This isn't working for me. Here is an example using the > Biobase package: > > ## If Biobase is

Hi, Reading help("Documentation"), I'm led to believe that a help call like: ?myFun(x, sqrt(wt)) Will search for help on the appropriate method in the case that myFun is generic. This isn't working for me. Here is an example using the Biobase package: ## If Biobase is not installed source("http://bioconductor.org/biocLite.R") biocLite("Biobase")

Is it correct (by its lack of mention in the R-Language Definition Manual) that it is impossible to create a user-defined unary operator? Ex: (This doesn't work, but it's an example of what I'm looking for) > "%PLUSONE%" <- function(x) x + 1 > %PLUSONE% 2 [1] 3 And if the above is impossible, am I limited to only the + - ~ ! unary operators for overloading? On

Hi everyone. What's going on here? > a <- matrix(1:4,2,2) > a [,1] [,2] [1,] 1 3 [2,] 2 4 > apply(a,2,sum) [1] 3 7 > apply(a,2,"+") [,1] [,2] [1,] 1 3 [2,] 2 4 > apply(a,1,"+") [,1] [,2] [1,] 1 2 [2,] 3 4 > help(apply) says that "+" should be quoted but is otherwise silent on unary

R has long supported user defined binary (infix) functions, defined with `%fun%`. A one line change [1] to R's grammar allows users to define unary (prefix) functions in the same manner. `%chr%` <- function(x) as.character(x) `%identical%` <- function(x, y) identical(x, y) %chr% 100 #> [1] "100" %chr% 100 %identical% "100" #> [1] TRUE

Hi llvmdev, I've noticed that there is no unary operator in LLVM. For unary operator such as Neg or Or operator, the IR builder just creates a binary operation with one dummy operand, 01823 <http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1BinaryOperator.html#a073c092ce74a122e898e435e60e84599> BinaryOperator <http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1BinaryOperator.html>

Gabe, The unary functions have the same precedence as normal SPECIALS (although the new unary forms take precedence over binary SPECIALS). So they are lower precedence than unary + and -. Yes, both of your examples are valid with this patch, here are the results and quoted forms to see the precedence. `%chr%` <- function(x) as.character(x) `%identical%` <- function(x, y)

Hi R - listers, I am receiving an error. Does anyone know what this means? J ggplot(subset(foo, Rayos != "Rayos.NA"), aes(x=HTL, y=DevelopIndex, colour=TotalEggs)) +geom_point() +geom_jitter() + facet_grid(Aeventexhumed ~ Rayos) + geom_smooth(method="lm", fill=NA) + ylim(c(0, 7)) Error in +geom_smooth(method = "lm", fill = NA) : invalid argument to unary

Martin, Jim can speak directly to his motivations; I don't claim to be able to do so. That said, I suspect this is related to a conversation on twitter about wanting an infix "unquote" operator in the context of the non-standard evaluation framework Hadley Wickham and Lionel Henry (and possibly others) are working on. They're currently using !!! and !! for things related to

Hi all, Why not make the unary minus operator return the factor with levels reversed? This would make it much easier to sort factors in descending order in part of an order statement. Hadley -- http://had.co.nz/

The unquoting discussion is IMHO separate from this proposal and as you noted probably better served by a native operator with different precedence. I think the main benefit to providing user defined prefix operators is it allows package authors to experiment with operator ideas and gauge community interest. The current situation means any novel unary semantics either need to co-opt existing

I guess this would establish a separate "namespace" of symbolic prefix operators, %*% being an example in the infix case. So you could have stuff like %?%, but for non-symbolic (spelled out stuff like %foo%), it's hard to see the advantage vs. foo(x). Those examples you mention should probably be addressed (eventually) in the core language, and it looks like people are already able

I agree there is no reason they _need_ to be the same precedence, but I think SPECIALS are already have the proper precedence for both unary and binary calls. Namely higher than all the binary operators (except for `:`), but lower than the other unary operators. Even if we gave unary specials their own precedence I think it would end up in the same place. `%l%` <- function(x) tail(x, n =

Hi Mehmet, On 11/29/2017 11:22 AM, Suzen, Mehmet wrote: > Hi Herve, > > I think you are confusing subclasses and classes. There is no > contradiction. `is` documentation > is very clear: > > `With one argument, returns all the super-classes of this object's class.` Yes that's indeed very clear. So if "list" is a super-class of "data.frame" (as

Hi, Short story ----------- setClassUnion("ArrayLike", "array") showClass("ArrayLike") # no slot setClass("MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass", contains="ArrayLike", representation(stuff="ANY") ) showClass("MyArrayLikeConcreteSubclass") # 2 slots!! That doesn't seem right. Long story ----------

>After off list discussions with Jonathan Carrol and with >Michael Lawrence I think it's doable, unambiguous, >and even imo pretty intuitive for an "unquote" operator. For those of us who are not CS/Lisp mavens, what is an "unquote" operator? Can you expression quoting and unquoting in R syntax and show a few examples where is is useful, intuitive, and fits in to

Hi, The unary forms of is() and extends() report that data.frame extends list, oldClass, and vector: > is(data.frame()) [1] "data.frame" "list" "oldClass" "vector" > extends("data.frame") [1] "data.frame" "list" "oldClass" "vector" However, the binary form of is()

Your example x = 5 exp = parse(text="f(uq(x)) + y +z") # expression: f(uq(x)) +y + z do_unquote(expr) # -> the language object f(5) + y + z could be done with the following wrapper for bquote my_do_unquote <- function(language, envir = parent.frame()) { if (is.expression(language)) { # bquote does not go into expressions, only calls

Hello, Is there a way of generating unary floating point operations (like ISD::FABS, ISD::FSIN, ...) from C code using clang? I am building a backend for a machine that has hw support for these ops and I need a way to test them. Thanks, Alex -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I am making some changes to the permax library (so that it will accept NA's). This function performs a permutation analysis to identify discriminating attributes distinguishing two groups of observations. It takes the form (at its most simplistic): permax(data, ig1) where ig1 is one group of interest. The other group (if not specified) is assumed to be the remaining observations, namely,