similar to: ifelse() woes ... can we agree on a ifelse2() ?

All, Martin: Thanks for this and all the other things you are doing to both drive R forward and engage more with the community about things like this. Apologies for missing this discussion the first time it came around and if anything here has already been brought up, but I wonder what exactly you mean when you want recycling behavior. Specifically, based on an unrelated discussion with Henrik

>>>>> Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono via R-devel <r-devel at r-project.org> >>>>> on Sat, 26 Nov 2016 17:14:01 +0000 writes: > Just stating, in 'ifelse', 'test' is not recycled. As I said in "R-intro: length of 'ifelse' result" (https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2016-September/073136.html), ifelse(condition, a,

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Hadley Wickham <h.wickham at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> One possibility would also be to consider a "numbers-only" or >> >> rather "same type"-only {e.g., would also work for characters} >> >> version. >> >> > I don't know what you mean by these. >> >> In the

Dear R-devel readers, ( = people interested in the improvement and development of R). This is not the first time that this topic is raised. and I am in now state to promise that anything will result from this thread ... Still, I think the majority among us has agreed that 1) you should never use ifelse(test, yes, no) if you know that length(test) == 1, in which case if(test) yes

>>>>> Gabriel Becker <gmbecker at ucdavis.edu> >>>>> on Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:56:04 -0800 writes: > All, > Martin: Thanks for this and all the other things you are doing to both > drive R forward and engage more with the community about things like this. > Apologies for missing this discussion the first time it came around and if

Excuse for the delay; I had waited for other / additional comments and reactions (and been distracted with other urgent issues), but do want to keep this thread alive [inline] .. >>>>> Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> >>>>> on Sat, 6 Aug 2016 11:30:08 -0400 writes: > On 06/08/2016 10:18 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: >> Dear

On 06.08.2016 17:30, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On 06/08/2016 10:18 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: >> Dear R-devel readers, >> ( = people interested in the improvement and development of R). >> >> This is not the first time that this topic is raised. >> and I am in now state to promise that anything will result from >> this thread ... >> >> Still, I

Removal of ans[nas] <- NA from the code of function 'ifelse' in R is not committed (yet). Why? -------------------------------------------- On Mon, 28/11/16, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: Subject: Re: [Rd] ifelse() woes ... can we agree on a ifelse2() ? Cc: R-devel at r-project.org, maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch Date: Monday, 28 November, 2016, 10:00

Finally getting back to this : >>>>> Hadley Wickham <h.wickham at gmail.com> >>>>> on Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:51:35 -0500 writes: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Hadley Wickham > <h.wickham at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> One possibility would also be to consider a >>> "numbers-only" or >>

Hugh, (Note I speak for myself only and not for R-core) Thanks for looking into this. I think it's great to have community members that are interested in contributing to R and helping it continue to get better. And I think, and my local experiments bear out, that using anyNA as a fastpass condition does allow us to get a significant speedup over what's in there now. To do so, though, I

On 06/08/2016 10:18 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: > Dear R-devel readers, > ( = people interested in the improvement and development of R). > > This is not the first time that this topic is raised. > and I am in now state to promise that anything will result from > this thread ... > > Still, I think the majority among us has agreed that > > 1) you should never use

Interspersed below. -------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: ifelse() woes ... can we agree on a ifelse2() ? To: R-devel at lists.R-project.org Date: Sunday, 27 November, 2016, 12:14 AM On current 'ifelse' code in R: ... * If 'test' is a factor, doing storage.mode(test) <- "logical" is not appropriate, but is.atomic(test) returns TRUE. Maybe use

> I propose a patch to ifelse that leverages anyNA(test) to achieve an > improvement in performance. For a test vector of length 10, the change > nearly halves the time taken and for a test of length 1 million, there > is a tenfold increase in speed. Even for small vectors, the > distributions of timings between the old and the proposed ifelse do > not intersect. For smaller

> Thomas Lumley wrote: > > On Tue, 31 May 2005, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > > > > > >>M??kinen Jussi wrote: > >> > >>>Dear All, > >>> > >>>I luckily found the following feature (or problem) when tried to > >>>apply > >>>ifelse-function to an ordered data. > >>> > >>> >

Dear All, I luckily found the following feature (or problem) when tried to apply ifelse-function to an ordered data. > test <- c(TRUE, TRUE, TRUE, FALSE, FALSE, FALSE, FALSE) > ifelse(test, 0, 1:4) [1] 0 0 0 4 1 2 3 > It roots into the ifelse-syntax: ans[!test & !nas] <- rep(no, length.out = length(ans))[!test & !nas] Would it be possible to disable this feature in the

Related to the length of 'ifelse' result, I want to say that "example of different return modes" in ?ifelse led me to perceive a wrong thing in the past. ## example of different return modes: yes <- 1:3 no <- pi^(0:3) typeof(ifelse(NA, yes, no)) # logical typeof(ifelse(TRUE, yes, no)) # integer typeof(ifelse(FALSE, yes, no)) # double As

hola Patricio, usa: dplyr::if_else [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi, It turns out that the 'test' vector in ifelse(test, yes, no) is not recycled if it is shorter than the other arguments, e.g. > ifelse(TRUE, seq(10), -seq(10)) [1] 1 Is there any particular reason it is not recycled? If there is one indeed a warning message might be in order when someone calls ifelse with a shorter 'test'. This is R1.8.1 on RH-7.3 Thanks, Vadim

I have a function to calculate the rate of increase (the difference between the value and the previous value divided by the total number of eggs in a year) of egg production over the course of a year: rate <- function(x){ storage <- matrix(nrow=length(x),ncol=1) storage[1,] <- x[1] / max(x) # as there is no previous value for( i in 2:length(x)){ p <- i - 1

Today is a good day for asking question, I guess. > c() NULL > > length(c())==0 [1] TRUE > > r = ifelse(length(c())!=0, c(), c(1,2)) ### OK > r = c() ### OK > r = ifelse(length(c())==0, c(), c(1,2)) ### why this is not OK (given > the previous two)? Error in "[<-"(`*tmp*`, test, value = rep(yes, length =