similar to: Moving from Structured to Object Oriented

Hi, I'm new to OOP in R so please forgive the naiveness of some of the questions. Here are a couple of them. It would be great if you can contrast to OOP in Java. 1. R's S4 appears to centered around a dispatch mechanism which in my understanding is just a way to implement polymorphism. Now, here's the snag, I thought polymorphism was an aspect of OOP not by itself the definition of

Good morning! I recently implemented a KD tree in JAVA for faster kernel density estimation (part of the code follows). It went well. To hook it with R, however, has proved more difficult. My question is: is it possible to implement the algorithm in R? My impression seems to indicate no as the code requires a complete class-object framework that R does not support. But is there an R package or

> I think the problem is deeper than that, in that LLVM has no official > concept of a subtype, so I don't see how the idea of polymorphism > could be defined in it. Parametric polymorphism is different from subtype polymorphism; you can have one without the other. Parametric polymorphism just means that you can use type variables (like T) in the IR, which are later instantiated to

Hello everybody, please excuse my bad English. I am Alfredo Naime and I'm from to Venezuela. I want to make a lib with tools for simulation (queues, inventories, factory, etc.) using object-oriented programming (OOP). You have any manuals on the handling of data types, classes, inheritance, etc. in R with examples and how to make a R lib. Thank you, very much. Alfredo

I'm a newcomer to llvm, but what you've done so far is very impressive. Llvm is a godsend to anybody who is attempting to implement their own their own language. :-) My company is considering using llvm as the backend for a small matlab-like language for scientific computation; our other option is MSIL. After reading through the documentation, I noticed that llvm seems to have one major

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:32, DeLesley SpamBox <delesley.spambox at googlemail.com> wrote: >> I think the problem is deeper than that, in that LLVM has no official >> concept of a subtype, so I don't see how the idea of polymorphism >> could be defined in it. > > Parametric polymorphism is different from subtype polymorphism; you > can have one without the

On Sunday 19 August 2007 19:34, Chris Lattner wrote: > How so? It's entirely possible to use FILE*'s without virtual > methods: just don't use iostreams. But you lose some flexibility. It may very well be a valid choice, but it needs to be carefully considered. But see below for more on dynamic vs. static polymorphism. > > What "overhead" are you talking

Hi, I'm looking for resources to read about the object-oriented features of R. I have looked through the "Manuals" page on r-project.org. The most useful of the documents seemed to be the "draft of the R language definition". However it had only about 6 pages on the topic. I have also used Google, but my problem here is that "R" appears in a *lot* of

>> How difficult would it be to add such a capability to llvm? I was thinking >> of marking type variables like T as opaque types for the initial codegen, >> and then writing a custom pass that instantiates them to real types. >> However, I don't know if that would confuse or break other parts of the >> compiler infrastructure; parametric polymorphism is not

Hello! Some CS-guys (the type who knows what Church formalism is) keep asking me questions about formal definitions of R-language that I can not answer (or even understand). Is there some freely available papers which I can throw at them where it would be explained is R functional/OOP/procedural language, does it use weak/strong, dynamic/static typization, does it use lazy or ...(do not know

> I was thinking of the "T extends Comparable" part, which does involve > subtype polymorphism. Apologies if I'm getting terms mixed up. It was a bad example -- not close enough to actual LLVM. :-) > What do the parametrized types give you that you don't get from using > opaque instead of T? Possibly nothing. I don't really understand the limitations of

> Why do you say that people who compile, e.g., functional languages > would benefit from type variables in LLVM? > I like the level the LLVM is at, and would prefer to deal with > instantiating parametric polymorphism at a higher level. I'm surprised you're happy with a non-polymorphic llvm. Does Cayenne target llvm? Dependent types take polymorphism to new heights -- but

On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 13:42, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > Previous generation languages like OCaml compile this into a completely > generic representation where polymorphism is handled at run-time. > Consequently, even though the polymorphism is buried in the fold function > (not visible at all in our "sum" function) it still incurs massive >

On Sunday 28 December 2008 05:53:55 Talin wrote: > The second solution is that when calling via a pointer, we always call > with the closure protocol, i.e. we include the hidden parameter. > However, when taking the address of a non-closure function, we actually > point to a stub function which strips off the hidden parameter before > calling the real function. This solution is

This maybe a silly question and the fact that I need a sanity check might even be weirder, but I''m trying to set realistic expectations for myself. I''ve been reading reading reading AWDWR, Ruby on Rails, some of the PickAxe, and even done a few recipes from Rails Recipes. This is all of two weeks. I feel that I''ve learned a considerable amount but going through the

I can fit a line to a set of given points, e.g., > sm.fit <- smooth.spline(1:4,1:4) > lm.fit <- lm(y~x, data=list(x=1:4,y=1:4)) Now I have two objects representing the straight line y(x)=x, of class "smooth.spline" and "lm", respectively. And as could be expected in object orientation, both have a method "predict", which I could use for interpolating

Hi all, I've been having a look to all OOP functionallity in R, basically I've been reading "Statistics and Computing" book by Chambers. My problem is that I'm thinking about refactoring many functions of the applications I work with (which is quite huge), in order to modularize its components. I believe that trying to use OOP functionality may help to reorganize and

Evan Cheng wrote: > While I agree spill cost computation does not belong in coalescer, I > am not sure if it should go into a separate pass. To me, spill cost > formulas should be register allocator specific. Perhaps it ought to > belong to a generic register allocator class. Each derivative > allocator is responsible for overriding it and calling it if it deems >

Why do you say that people who compile, e.g., functional languages would benefit from type variables in LLVM? I like the level the LLVM is at, and would prefer to deal with instantiating parametric polymorphism at a higher level. On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:43 PM, DeLesley Hutchins <delesley.spambox at googlemail.com> wrote: >> I think many people were confused by this at first but an

Hello everyone. I would like to create many objects with R. Does R support objects? The number of objects needed is not predetermined and it is a parameter specified by the user. If the user selects to create many objects like 100, would it be possible to handle each one by some index? I would like to thank you in advance for your help. Best Regards Alex [[alternative HTML version