similar to: Segfault with match()

I left out the warning - it's still there. The output object is malformed but either +.factor should prevent this or match() should check. Hadley On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:50 PM, William Dunlap <wdunlap at tibco.com> wrote: > Did you leave out the warning from "+", which should be an error, > as it produces an illegal ordered factor in this case and factor+factor >

Hi all, Is there a method for escaping strings to be used regular expressions? i.e. if I have a user supplied string that I'd like to use as a fixed component is there a method that will turn (e.g.) ".$^" into "\\.\\$\\^" ? Thanks, Hadley -- http://had.co.nz/

I wish it didn't have to depend on the name '.local'. Back when I wrote a lot of S4 methods I avoided the auto-generated .local and named the local function something that made sense so that is was easier for a user to track down the source of an error. E.g., define the generic QQQ with numeric and integer methods: setGeneric("QQQ", function(x, ...)NULL)

Hi everyone, I have been merging many big dataframes (about 80000 rows each) and I never had this problem, but now it happened to me and I want to know if someone knows what could be happening. The final dataframe has many rows, an impossible number! I have done edit(dataframe) and I saw that there are many repeated rows (all equal). Thanks for any help, Cec?lia Carmo Universidade de

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

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Jeff Newmiller <jdnewmil at dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > Another approach: > > ######## > library(tidyr) > L <- list( A = data.frame( x=1:2, y=3:4 ) > , B = data.frame( x=5:6, y=7:8 ) > ) > D <- data.frame( Type = names( L ) > , stringsAsFactors = FALSE > ) > D$data <- L

>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

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 all, I love the option to not automatically convert strings into factors, but there are three places that the current option doesn't work where I think it should: options(stringsAsFactors = FALSE) str(expand.grid(letters)) str(type.convert(letters)) df <- read.fwf(textConnection(paste(letters,collapse="\n")), 1) str(df) I think type.convert and read.fwf can be fixed by

Another approach: ######## library(tidyr) L <- list( A = data.frame( x=1:2, y=3:4 ) , B = data.frame( x=5:6, y=7:8 ) ) D <- data.frame( Type = names( L ) , stringsAsFactors = FALSE ) D$data <- L unnest(D, data) #> Type x y #> 1 A 1 3 #> 2 A 2 4 #> 3 B 5 7 #> 4 B 6 8 ######## On Wed, 2 May 2018, Eivind K.

library(grid) e <- rectGrob() # OR: # e <- environment() a <- matrix(list(e), ncol = 1, nrow = 2) b <- matrix(ncol = 0, nrow = 2) cbind(a, b) cbind(a, b) This reliably crashes R for me. I realise this is a rather esoteric error condition, but it crops up for me when creating matrices of grobs to be turned into a ggplot2 plot. Hadley -- http://had.co.nz/

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/

Hi all, Does there already exist a version of substitute that evaluates it's first argument? (i.e. it accepts an already quoted expression). This seems like something that's pretty handy, but I haven't found any existing function to do it: substitute_e <- function(expr, env) { eval(substitute(substitute(expr, env), list(expr = expr))) } f <- quote(x + y + z) substitute(f,

Should the following two functions should always give the same result, except for possible differences in the 'call' component of the warning or error message?: f0 <- function(x, y) x || y f1 <- function(x, y) if (x) { TRUE } else { if (y) {TRUE } else { FALSE } } And the same for the 'and' version? g0 <- function(x, y) x && y g1 <- function(x, y) if

On 5/11/19 3:41 AM, Hadley Wickham wrote: > For what it's worth, I don't think this strategy can work in general, > because a class might have attributes that depend on its data/contents > (e.g. https://vctrs.r-lib.org/articles/s3-vector.html#cached-sum). I > don't think these are particularly common in practice, but it's > dangerous to assume that you can restore a

Would we really need the special class or would simply checking the formals of the method against those of the generic be simple and fast enough? On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:41 AM, John Chambers <jmc at r-project.org> wrote: > I wouldn't want to add more to the current approach; if someone would like > to devote some time, the much preferable idea IMO would be to replace the >

Hello everyone, When I run a for loop I noticed that the looping variable gets assigned the last value in the loop: For example, if I let h=200, and I run for(i in 1:h), i gets the value 200. What's wrong here? -- -Tony [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi All, I have a 1000x1000000 matrix. The calculation I would like to do is actually very simple: for each row, calculate the frequency of a given pattern. For example, a toy dataset is as follows. Col1 Col2 Col3 Col4 01 02 02 00 => Freq of ?02? is 0.5 02 02 02 01 => Freq of ?02? is 0.75 00 02 01 01 ? My code is quite simple as the following to find the pattern ?02?.

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

Hi Given three vectors x <- c(fish=3, dogs=5, bats=2) y <- c(dogs=1, hogs=3) z <- c(bats=3, dogs=5) How do I create a multi-way table like the following? > out x y z bats 2 0 3 dogs 5 1 5 fish 3 0 0 hogs 0 3 0 ('out' is a matrix). See how the first line shows 'x' has 2 bats, 'y' has zero bats, and 'z' has 3 bats and so on for each