f3 <- function() { ( a <- 5 ) } f4 <- function() { a <- 5 a }
On my machine f1,f2, and f4 all perform approx. the same. The () in f3 adds about 20% overhead. Jeff On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Kevin Wright <kw.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > For those of you "familiar with R", here's a little quiz. What what's the > difference between: > > > f1 <- function(){ > a=5 > } > f1() > > f2 <- function(){ > return(a=5) > } > f2() > > > Kevin Wright > > > > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Geoff Jentry <geoffjen...@hexdump.org>wrote: > >> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, David Scott wrote: >> >>> 4. We don't want gratuitous use of "return" at the end of functions. >>>> Why do people still do that? >>>> >>> Well I for one (and Jeff as well it seems) think it is good programming >>> practice. It makes explicit what is being returned eliminating the >>> possibility of mistakes and provides clarity for anyone reading the code. >>> >> >> You're unnecessarily adding the overhead of a function call by explicitly >> calling return(). >> >> Sure it seems odd for someone coming from the C/C++/Java/etc world, but >> anyone familiar with R should find code that doesn't have an explicit >> return() call to be fully readable & clear. >> >> -J >> >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > -- Jeffrey Ryan jeffrey.r...@lemnica.com www.lemnica.com ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel