* length(dim(X))==5 and MARGIN=c(1,3,5) and length(dim(FUN.result))==2 * length(dim(X))==3 and MARGIN=c(1,3) and length(dim(FUN.result))==2 * length(dim(X))==5 and MARGIN=c(1,3,5) and length(dim(FUN.result))==1
I think the approach I took was to fill in the "holes" in MARGIN in order with the dimensions of the result, with extra ones going on at the end, but I can't really remember because I don't really ever use that feature. I did this because that seemed to preserve the structure of X to the greatest degree possible. This also results in calls like enhanced.apply(X, 1, c) and enhanced.apply(X, 2, c) both returning the original matrix, in contrast to behavior of apply(). However, if anyone has any ideas about what is the most principled and useful way to assemble results, I'd be interested to hear. (FWIW, I called this function "bapply", for "array binding apply".)
Note that tapply() can also be given the same treatment (as could be sapply(), though with sapply() it is just as easy to call abind(lapply(...), ...) instead).
cheers,
Tony Plate
At Tuesday 01:49 AM 8/31/2004, you wrote:
Dear all,
apply(X, MARGIN, FUN, ...) returns an array of dimension c(n, dim(X)[MARGIN]) when FUN returns a vector of length n > 1.
Matrices and arrays are also vectors, so if FUN returns a matrix or an array, apply returns an array of dimension c(n, dim(X)[MARGIN]) as above. This is in accordance with the description of apply in the Blue Book, and also how Splus works (at least v6.0).
I am curious: why was it decided not to return an array of dimension c(dim(result.of.FUN), dim(X)[MARGIN]) when FUN returns a matrix or an array?
(This is not meant as criticism. I am sure there is a good reason; I just cannot see it.)
-- Bjørn-Helge Mevik
______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel