similar to: Copy on assignment to large field of reference class

Hi All, i have a problem in understanding what the assignment operator '<-' really is doing. If i create two numeric arrays in R and copy one into the other with '<-' and afterwards change one array by calling a C function, both arrays are changed! The problem I am facing can easily be seen in the following example: (The following R code and the C function is attached and

Hello all, A friend recently brought to my attention that vector assignment actually recreates the entire vector on which the assignment is performed. So for example, the code: x[10]<- NA # The original call (short version) Is really doing this: x<- replace(x, list=10, values=NA) # The original call (long version) # assigning a whole new vector to x Which is actually doing this: x<-

This bug appears intermittently in R CMD check when reference classes have finalize methods. The problem is that garbage collection can be run after the methods package is no longer available. It affects (periodically) the Bioconductor AnnotationDbi package as well as packages that contain Rcpp classes. To reproduce: library(methods) a = setRefClass("A",

I've found that reference class objects tend to behave like plain old environments wrt field access, unless a method on e.g. $<- is explicitly defined. Here is a code snippet: library(methods) Foo <- setRefClass("Foo") foo <- Foo$new() foo$a <- 2 # why does this succeed? not a valid field! ## set a silly $<- method setReplaceMethod("$", "Foo",

As of rev. 61035 in r-devel, setRefClass() now returns a generator function, as setClass() has done since 2.15.0. The convenient style is now: mEdit <- setRefClass("mEdit",......) xx <- mEdit(data = xMat) instead of xx <- mEdit$new(data = xMat) The returned object still has fields and methods accessible as before. See the "Value" and "Reference Class

Dear list, I came across a behavior that IMHO is somewhat undesired when calling '$field()': If the field name whose value you're trying to get is *not* a valid field of the Reference Class, then R doesn't stop there with an error, but scans through all enclosing environments/frames. The result is something similar to calling '|get(<objname>, inherits=TRUE)|'

Dears, I have a question about copying reference objects using the initialize method. 1) If the latter has no arguments, there is no problem to copy an object. myClass = setRefClass("myClass", fields = list(value = "numeric") ) myClass$methods(initialize = function(...){ ? value <<- 1 ? callSuper(...) }) newObject = myClass$new() newObject$value = 2 copyObject =

Dear John and others, I've been wondering about whether there's any way to indicate a "nil" reference class object, which will represent "no value", and be tested for, but not fail the internal type checking. NULL is the obvious choice (or seems so to me), but can only be used if an explicit class union is created: > Foo <- setRefClass("Foo") > Bar

Is it possible to override the $new(...) in the reference class generator? I have tried adding a "new" method to the methods of the class, but that is obviously not correct. I have also tried adding it to the class generator, but the class generator still uses the default constructor. As a simple example, this is the current interface: TestClass <- setRefClass

Dear list, I have a reference class which should act as a "generic" superclass for other classes. I've read the respective section at ?setRefClass and put the name of the superclass to the 'contains' argument of an example subclass (see class defs below). Classnames are set in a way that shouldn't result in collation issues (virtual def sourced before superclass def

Dear list, I was wondering if you could help me out in clarifying something: Is it possible to use class "ANY" in slots/fields of formal classes if you a) do not want to restrict valid classes of that field and b) if you are making explicit use of class inheritance? It seems to work in simple scenarios but produces errors when class inheritance comes into play. So I was

I've been playing with passing arguments to .C(), and found that replacing as.double(x) with if(is.double(x)) x else as.double(x) saves time and avoids one copy, in the case that x is already double. I suggest modifying as.double to avoid the extra copy and just return x, when x is already double. Similarly for as.integer, etc. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi, I'm trying to create a package that contains reference class definitions from which users can create reference objects, but there seems to be something awry. My toy example creates an empty package via package.skeleton('TestClass') to which I add the following R code: TestClass <- setRefClass('TestClass',fields=c('name')) Unfortunately my R console output

Hi, $ R --vanilla R version 2.14.1 (2011-12-22) Platform: i686-pc-linux-gnu (32-bit) > DF = data.frame(a=1:3,b=4:6) > DF a b 1 1 4 2 2 5 3 3 6 > tracemem(DF) [1] "<0x8898098>" > names(DF)[2]="B" tracemem[0x8898098 -> 0x8763e18]: tracemem[0x8763e18 -> 0x8766be8]: tracemem[0x8766be8 -> 0x8766b68]: > DF a B 1 1 4 2 2 5 3 3 6 > Are those 3

Hi Being able to do object oriented programming in R is really good. I now started using the Reference Classes and really like it. Though, I have one problem: I cannot find a way to update a method on an existing object. The flexibility that scripting gives (really needed for interactive data analysis) is lost if everything have to be recalculated all the time. For example I would normally

I am trying to define subset operator for a reference class and hitting some problem i am unable to diagnose.To give an example, here is a toy class generator that is a wrapper around a list tmpGEN<-setRefClass("TMP", fields=list( namelist="list" )) tmpGEN$methods('add'=function(obj, name){ namelist[[name]]<<-obj })

Is putting a variable into a list a deep copy (and is tracemem the correct way to confirm)? warmstrong at krypton:~/dvl/R.packages$ R > x <- rnorm(1000) > tracemem(x) [1] "<0x3214c90>" > x.list <- list(x.in.list=x) tracemem[0x3214c90 -> 0x2af0a20]: > Is it possible to put a variable into a list without causing a deep copy (i.e. if you _really_ want the

Dear list, I don't know what's the correct term for this in the OOP context, but is it possible to "clone"/copy an instance of a reference class (say 'a') so that I get an *autonomous* second instance 'b'? Autonomous in the sense that changes to 'a' do not affect 'b'. I know that this is somewhat against the pass-by-reference paradigm, but the

Dear All, It seems that reference classes consume a lot of memory which became a problem for my rather extensive simulation. I prepared a small example. An instance of this minimal class uses about 20K on disk. rm(list=ls(all=TRUE)); MySmallClass = setRefClass("MySmallClass", fields = list( myField = "numeric" ), methods = list( initialize =

Dear list, is it possible that method dispatch checks for superclasses/virtual classes before checking "ANY"? I'd like to build a generic initialization method for all my Reference Class (say "MyDataFrame") objects by having them inherit from class, say "MyRefClassVirtual" (which would have to be a virtual S4 class; there are no virtual Reference Classes,