similar to: stack problem

One would normally want the original order that so that one can stack a list, operate on the result and then unstack it back with the unstacked result having the same ordering as the original. LL <- list(z = 1:3, a = list()) # since we can't do s <- stack(LL,. drop = FALSE) do this instead: s <- transform(stack(LL), ind = factor(as.character(ind), levels = names(LL))) unstack(s)

On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 at 09:41, Gabor Grothendieck <ggrothendieck at gmail.com> wrote: > > Also why should that difference result in different behavior? That's justifiable, I think; consider: > d1 = data.frame(a = 1:4) > d2 = d3 = data.frame(b = 1:2) > row.names(d3) = c("a", "b") > data.frame(d1, d2) a b 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 4 4 2 > data.frame(d1,

Also why should that difference result in different behavior? On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 9:38?AM Gabor Grothendieck <ggrothendieck at gmail.com> wrote: > > In that case identical should be FALSE but it is TRUE > > identical(a1, a2) > ## [1] TRUE > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 8:58?AM Deepayan Sarkar > <deepayan.sarkar at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >

In that case identical should be FALSE but it is TRUE identical(a1, a2) ## [1] TRUE On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 8:58?AM Deepayan Sarkar <deepayan.sarkar at gmail.com> wrote: > > They differ in whether the row names are "automatic": > > > .row_names_info(a1) > [1] -3 > > .row_names_info(a2) > [1] 3 > > Best, > -Deepayan > > On Tue, 14 Nov

Also note that the functionality discussed could be regarded as a generalization of matrix multiplication where * and + are general functions and in this case we have * replaced by == and + replaced by &. On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 10:46 AM Gabor Grothendieck <ggrothendieck at gmail.com> wrote: > > Using the example in the link here are two one-liners: > > A <-

Pretty good question Gabor. I can execute R once it is installed (if someone with rights installs it before) but not the installer. I can download the installer (with some pain). I know that some installers are actually compressed files in disguise, but I think this is not the case with R, right? I will study the exact nature of the restriction, and get back to you. Nevertheless, having a

Can you clarify what the nature of the security restriction is? If you can't run the R installer then how it is that you could run R? That would still involve running an external exe even if it came in a zip file. Could it be that the restriction is not on running exe files but on downloading them? If that is it then there are obvious workarounds (rename it not to have an exe externsion or

They differ in whether the row names are "automatic": > .row_names_info(a1) [1] -3 > .row_names_info(a2) [1] 3 Best, -Deepayan On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 at 08:23, Gabor Grothendieck <ggrothendieck at gmail.com> wrote: > > What is going on here? In the lines ending in #### the inputs and outputs > are identical yet one gives a warning and the other does not. > >

The idea is that one wants to write the line of code below in a general way which works the same whether you specify ix as one column or multiple columns but the naming entirely changes when you do this and BOD[, 1] and transform(BOD, X=..., Y=...) or other hard coding solutions still require writing multiple cases. ix <- 1:2 transform(BOD, X = BOD[ix] * seq(6)) On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at

The first component name has backticks around it and the second does not. Though not wrong, it seems inconsistent. list(a = 1, b = 2) ## $`a` ## [1] 1 ## ## $b ## [1] 2 R.version.string ## [1] "R version 3.5.1 Patched (2018-07-02 r74950)" -- Statistics & Software Consulting GKX Group, GKX Associates Inc. tel: 1-877-GKX-GROUP email: ggrothendieck at gmail.com

What is wrong with you guys? I asked for a zip, like R Studio has for example. Totally clear. I cant execute exes. But I can unzip files. Thanks Gabor, I had that in mind, but can't execute the exe due to security restrictions. Geez, really, treating people who ask questions this way just makes you don't want to ask a single one. On Thu, Jan 25, 2018, 11:19 Gabor Grothendieck

In R devel rev.66393 (2014-08-15) it was possible to do this: trace(optim, exit = quote(str(returnValue()))) but returnValue() does not seem to be available any more. The above was useful to get the output of a function when it was called deep within another function that I have no control over. Has this been replaced by some other equivalent function? P.S. This demonstrates that it no

This works: my.compose <- function(f, ...) { if (missing(f)) identity else function(x) f(my.compose(...)(x)) } my.compose(sin, cos, tan)(pi/4) ## [1] 0.5143953 sin(cos(tan(pi/4))) ## [1] 0.5143953 But replacing my.compose with Recall in the else causes it to fail: my.compose2 <- function(f, ...) { if (missing(f)) identity else function(x) f(Recall(...)(x))

Note the inconsistency in the names in these two examples. X.Time in the first case and Time.1 in the second case. > transform(BOD, X = BOD[1:2] * seq(6)) Time demand X.Time X.demand 1 1 8.3 1 8.3 2 2 10.3 4 20.6 3 3 19.0 9 57.0 4 4 16.0 16 64.0 5 5 15.6 25 78.0 6 7 19.8 42 118.8 >

That's an interesting example, as it's conceptually similar to what Pavel is proposing, but structurally different. gsubfn() is more complicated than a simple switch in the body of the function, and wouldn't work well as an anonymous function. Multiple dispatch can nicely encompass both of these cases. For replace(), library(S7) replace <- new_generic("replace",

This code which has worked for years in R but fails under R-devel: > R.version.string [1] "R Under development (unstable) (2012-07-25 r59963)" > > n <- 3 > f <- function(x) {} > formals(f) <- rep(formals(f), n) ## Error in rep(formals(f), n) : replication of pairlists is defunct The message suggests that the change was intentional. Why was this functionality

I am receiving this message during Rcmd check proto-3.9.2.tar.gz using "R version 2.13.0 Patched (2011-04-25 r55638)" * checking installed package size ...Error in if (total > 1024 * 5) { : missing value where TRUE/FALSE needed Execution halted I don't get this under R.2.12.x. The size of the tar.gz file is under 600K. What causes this or if its too hard to tell from the

Regarding, this news item for r-devel: ?for()? loops are generalized to iterate over any object with ?[[? and ?length()? methods. Thanks to Herv? Pag?s for the idea and the patch. Below dd is an object for which [[ and length work but the result is still numeric rather than Date class in "R Under development (unstable) (2016-03-15 r70334)" as observed in the comments to:

What is going on here? In the lines ending in #### the inputs and outputs are identical yet one gives a warning and the other does not. a1 <- `rownames<-`(anscombe[1:3, ], NULL) a2 <- anscombe[1:3, ] ix <- 5:8 # input arguments to #### are identical in both cases identical(stack(a1[ix]), stack(a2[ix])) ## [1] TRUE identical(a1[-ix], a2[-ix]) ## [1] TRUE res1 <-

I believe that the ordinary Windows installer for R can produce a portable result by choosing the appropriate configuration options from the offered screens when you run the installer Be sure to enter the desired path in the Select Destination Location screen, choose Yes on the Startup options screen and ensure that all boxes are unchecked on the Select additional tasks screen. On Wed, Jan 24,