similar to: :: and ::: as .Primitives?

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: ":: and ::: as .Primitives?"

2015 Jan 22
5
:: and ::: as .Primitives?
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:44 AM, <luke-tierney at uiowa.edu> wrote: > > For default methods there ought to be a way to create those so the > default method is computed at creation or load time and stored in an > environment. We had considered that, but we thought the definition of the function would be easier to interpret if it explicitly specified the namespace, instead of
2015 Jan 22
1
:: and ::: as .Primitives?
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:44 AM, <luke-tierney at uiowa.edu> wrote: > I'm not convinced that how to make :: faster is the right question. If > you are finding foo::bar being called often enough to matter to your > overall performance then to me the question is: why are you calling > foo::bar more than once? Making :: a bit faster by making it a > primitive will remove
2015 Jan 23
1
:: and ::: as .Primitives?
Hi, On 01/23/2015 07:01 AM, luke-tierney at uiowa.edu wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Michael Lawrence wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:44 AM, <luke-tierney at uiowa.edu> wrote: >>> >>> For default methods there ought to be a way to create those so the >>> default method is computed at creation or load time and stored in an >>>
2015 Jan 22
0
:: and ::: as .Primitives?
Hi all, I use Luke's "::" hoisting trick often. I think it would be fantastic if the JIT just did that for you. The main trouble, for me, is in code I don't own. When common Bioconductor packages are loaded many, many base functions are saddled with this substantial dispatch and "::" overhead. While we have the hood up, the parser could help out a bit here too. It
2015 Jan 22
0
:: and ::: as .Primitives?
I'm not convinced that how to make :: faster is the right question. If you are finding foo::bar being called often enough to matter to your overall performance then to me the question is: why are you calling foo::bar more than once? Making :: a bit faster by making it a primitive will remove some overhead, but your are still left with a lot of work that shouldn't need to happen more than
2015 Jan 23
0
:: and ::: as .Primitives?
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Michael Lawrence wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:44 AM, <luke-tierney at uiowa.edu> wrote: >> >> For default methods there ought to be a way to create those so the >> default method is computed at creation or load time and stored in an >> environment. > > We had considered that, but we thought the definition of the function >
2015 Jan 09
2
RFC: getifexists() {was [Bug 16065] "exists" ...}
>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> >>>>> on Fri, 9 Jan 2015 14:00:38 +0100 writes: >>>>> Michael Lawrence <lawrence.michael at gene.com> >>>>> on Thu, 8 Jan 2015 14:02:26 -0800 writes: >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:57 AM, <luke-tierney at uiowa.edu> wrote: >>> On Thu, 8
2015 Jan 27
2
names function for environments?
I think ls(, sort=FALSE) would be more explicit and thus clearer. There is much precedent for having arguments that request less work to be done e.g. unlist(use.names=FALSE). Yes, the extra typing is a bit painful, but there is no intuitive reason why names() would be unsorted, while ls() would be sorted. While it is tempting to use an existing function for this, the word "names" is
2015 Jan 25
2
names function for environments?
Hi all, The "ls" function wears two hats. It allows users to inspect an environment interactively and also serves deeper in code as the accessor for an environment's names/keys. I propose that we separate these two conflicting goals, keeping ls for interactive use and adding names for a quick listing of the hash keys. This involves adding two lines to do_names in attrib.c. The
2015 Jan 27
2
names function for environments?
Since the contract of ls() is to sort, there is nothing wrong with programmers depending on it. And there are many functions that could be made 60X faster, but is it worth it? But I did notice that as.list.environment has a sorted=FALSE argument already, so I guess identical(names(x), names(as.list(x))) could be made to be TRUE, assuming the order is at least persistent, if undefined, so that is a
2015 Jan 21
2
reducing redundant work in methods package
Doing it like this: genericForPrimitive <- function(f, where = topenv(parent.frame()), mustFind = TRUE) { ans = .BasicFunsList[[f]] ## this element may not exist (yet, during loading), dom't test null if(mustFind && identical(ans, FALSE)) stop(gettextf("methods may not be defined for primitive function %s in this version of R",
2012 Mar 19
1
enableJIT(3) with Primitives
I'm not sure if this is a bug or expected behavior, but I don't see anything in the documentation that explains it, so I thought I'd mention it: ~ michaelweylandt$ R -q --vanilla library(compiler) enableJIT(3) `+` # Throws an error `+` # Throws a warning `+` # Prints the primitive as expected sessionInfo() R version 2.14.1 (2011-12-22) Platform: i386-apple-darwin9.8.0/i386
2015 Jan 08
4
RFC: getifexists() {was [Bug 16065] "exists" ...}
If we do add an argument to get(), then it should be named consistently with the ifnotfound argument of mget(). As mentioned, the possibility of a NULL value is problematic. One solution is a sentinel value that indicates an unbound value (like R_UnboundValue). But another idea (and one pretty similar to John's) is to follow the SYMSXP design at the C level, where there is a structure that
2015 Jan 22
3
speedbump in library
Hi all, Profiling turned up a bit of a speedbump in the library function. I submitted a patch to the R bug tracker as bug 16168 and I've also included it below. The alternate code is simpler and easier to read/maintain, I believe. Any thoughts on other ways to write this? Index: src/library/base/R/library.R =================================================================== ---
2015 Jan 08
3
setequal: better readability, reduced memory footprint, and minor speedup
How about unique them both and compare the lengths? It's less work, especially allocation. Pete ____________________ Peter M. Haverty, Ph.D. Genentech, Inc. phaverty at gene.com On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:30 PM, peter dalgaard <pdalgd at gmail.com> wrote: > If you look at the definition of %in%, you'll find that it is implemented > using match, so if we did as you suggest,
2015 Jan 21
2
reducing redundant work in methods package
Hi all, The function call series genericForPrimitive -> .findBasicFuns -> .findAll happens 4400 times while the GenomicRanges package is loading. Each time .findAll follows a chain of environments to determine that the methods namespace is the only one that holds a variable called .BasicFunsList. This accounts for ~10% of package loading time. I'm sure there is some history to that
2014 Dec 03
2
we need an exists/get hybrid
Thanks Winston! I'm amazed that "[[" beats calling the .Internal directly. I guess the difference between .Primitive vs. .Internal is pretty significant for things on this time scale. NULL meaning NULL and NULL meaning undefined would lead to the same path for much of my code. I'll be swapping out many exists and get calls later today. Thanks! I do still think it would be
2012 Mar 21
2
enableJIT() prohibits usual R debugging
Hi, Browser doesn't work properly with the compiler enabled. It might be intended behavior, but it's not documented. compiler::enableJIT(1) foo <- function(){ browser() cat("here\n") } Browser doesn't stop, and I am getting: > foo() Called from: foo() Browse[1]> here > Thanks, Vitalie. > sessionInfo() R version 2.14.2 (2012-02-29) Platform:
2015 Jan 18
2
default min-v/nsize parameters
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Michael Lawrence <lawrence.michael at gene.com> wrote: > Just wanted to start a discussion on whether R could ship with more > appropriate GC parameters. I've been doing a number of similar measurements, and have come to the same conclusion. R is currently very conservative about memory usage, and this leads to unnecessarily poor performance on
2018 Mar 10
1
parallel:::newPSOCKnode(): background worker fails immediately if socket on master is not set up in time (BUG?)
Great. For the record of this thread, I've submitted patch PR17391 (https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=17391). I've patched it against the latest R-devel on the SVN, passes 'make check-all', and I've verified it works with the above tests. /Henrik On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:37 AM, <luke-tierney at uiowa.edu> wrote: > I'm happy to look at a