similar to: head.matrix can return 1000s of columns -- limit to n or add new argument?

Hi Michael and Abby, So one thing that could happen that would be backwards compatible (with the exception of something that was an error no longer being an error) is head and tail could take vectors of length (dim(x)) rather than integers of length for n, with the default being n=6 being equivalent to n = c(6, dim(x)[2], <...>, dim(x)[k]), at least for the deprecation cycle, if not

>>>>> Michael Chirico >>>>> on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 20:52:34 +0800 writes: > Finally read in detail your response Gabe. Looks great, > and I agree it's quite intuitive, as well as agree against > non-recycling. > Once the length(n) == length(dim(x)) behavior is enabled, > I don't think there's any need/desire to have

>>>>> Fox, John >>>>> on Tue, 17 Sep 2019 12:32:13 +0000 writes: > Dear Herve, > Sorry, I should have said "matrices" rather than "data frames" -- brief() has methods for both. > Best, > John > ----------------------------- > John Fox, Professor Emeritus > McMaster University >

Finally read in detail your response Gabe. Looks great, and I agree it's quite intuitive, as well as agree against non-recycling. Once the length(n) == length(dim(x)) behavior is enabled, I don't think there's any need/desire to have head() do x[1:6,1:6] anymore. head(x, c(6, 6)) is quite clear for those familiar with head(x, 6), it would seem to me. Mike C On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at

Awesome. Gabe, since you already have a workshopped version, would you like to proceed? Feel free to ping me to review the patch once it's posted. On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:26 PM Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: > >>>>> Michael Chirico > >>>>> on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 20:52:34 +0800 writes: > > > Finally read in

Dear Herve, The brief() generic function in the car package does something very similar to that for data frames (and has methods for other classes of objects as well). Best, John ----------------------------- John Fox, Professor Emeritus McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Web: http::/socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox > On Sep 17, 2019, at 2:52 AM, Pages, Herve <hpages at

Dear Herve, Sorry, I should have said "matrices" rather than "data frames" -- brief() has methods for both. Best, John ----------------------------- John Fox, Professor Emeritus McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Web: http::/socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox > On Sep 17, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Fox, John <jfox at mcmaster.ca> wrote: > > Dear Herve,

Hi Martin et al. Sorry for not getting back onto this sooner. I've been pretty well buried under travel plus being sick for a bit, but I will be happy to roll up a patch for this, including documentation and put it into a wishlist item. I'll aim to do that at some point next week. Thanks @Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> for engaging with us and being willing to

On 10/30/19 04:29, Martin Maechler wrote: >>>>>> Gabriel Becker >>>>>> on Tue, 29 Oct 2019 12:43:15 -0700 writes: > > > Hi all, > > So I've started working on this and I ran into something that I didn't > > know, namely that for x a multi-dimensional (2+) array, head(x) and tail(x) > > ignore dimension

Hi all, So I've started working on this and I ran into something that I didn't know, namely that for x a multi-dimensional (2+) array, head(x) and tail(x) ignore dimension completely, treat x as an atomic vector, and return an (unclassed) atomic vector: > x = array(100, c(4, 5, 5)) > dim(x) [1] 4 5 5 > head(x, 1) [1] 100 > class(head(x)) [1] "numeric" (For a

> > And indeed I think you are right on spot and this would mean > > that indeed the implicit class > > "matrix" should rather become c("matrix", "array"). > > I've made up my mind (and not been contradicted by my fellow R > corers) to try go there for R 4.0.0 next April. I'm not enthusiastic about matrices extending arrays. If a

>>>>> Gabriel Becker >>>>> on Tue, 29 Oct 2019 12:43:15 -0700 writes: > Hi all, > So I've started working on this and I ran into something that I didn't > know, namely that for x a multi-dimensional (2+) array, head(x) and tail(x) > ignore dimension completely, treat x as an atomic vector, and return an > (unclassed)

> I assume there are lots of backwards-compatibility issues as well as valid > use cases for this behavior, so I guess defaulting to M[1:6, 1:6] is out of > the question. Agree. > Is there any scope for adding a new argument to head.matrix that would > allow this flexibility? I agree with what you're trying to achieve. However, I'm not sure this is as simple as you're

For the record, this is Linux R-devel: root at 4bef68c16864:~# R CMD /opt/R-devel/lib/R/bin/Rcmd: 60: shift: can't shift that many root at 4bef68c16864:~# R CMD -h /opt/R-devel/lib/R/bin/Rcmd: 62: exec: -h: not found root at 4bef68c16864:~# R CMD --help /opt/R-devel/lib/R/bin/Rcmd: 62: exec: --help: not found This is R-release on macOS: ? R CMD

You could assign a density value to each point. Maybe you've done that already...? Then trim the lowest n (number of) data points Or trim the lowest p (proportion of) data points. e.g. Remove the data points with the 20 lowest density values. Or remove the data points with the lowest 5% of density values. I'll let you decide whether that is a good idea or a bad idea. And if it's a

>>>>> peter dalgaard >>>>> on Thu, 31 Oct 2019 23:04:29 +0100 writes: > Hmm, the problem I see here is that these implied classes are all inherently one-off. We also have >> inherits(matrix(1,1,1),"numeric") > [1] FALSE >> is.numeric(matrix(1,1,1)) > [1] TRUE >> inherits(1L,"numeric")

>>>>> Avraham Adler >>>>> on Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:38:12 -0500 writes: > Those of us stuck on Windows but who attempt to develop properly are > wounded to the quick, sir! > :) > Avi Indeed, you had a ' :) ' , but others have perceived this as an insult. I'm really really sorry for that and do want to apologize to all of

> On Jan 14, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Abby Spurdle <spurdle.a at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I do want to entice people to have a long look beyond closed >> source OS into the world of Free Software where not only R is >> FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) but (all / almost) all the >> tools you use are of that same spirit. > > And while everyone is talking about

<polite mode> > x %inherits% "data.frame" IMHO, I think that user-defined binary operators are being over-used within the R community. I don't think that they're "cute" or stylish. I think their use should be limited to cases, where they significantly increase the readability of the code. However, readability, is a (partly) subjective topic...

> You can have your own rant about "user-defined binary operators being > over-used within the R community" without suggesting that my rant was > rude. I wasn't suggesting that you were rude. I was questioning a trend.