Hi:
As far as I can see, the problem has to do with the way you wrote f and g:
> f(2)
f for 2
[1] 4
> g(5)
g for 5
[1] 15
You output an unsaved character string with a numeric result, but the
character string is not part of the return object since it is neither saved
as a name or an attribute. If you save the output to an object, it returns
the numeric outcome:
> s <- f(2)
> s
[1] 4
> names(s)
NULL
> attributes(s)
NULL
However,
> f <- function(x) 2^x
> g <- function(x) 3^x
> ifelse(t %% 2 == 0, f(t), g(t))
[1] 3.000000e+00 4.000000e+00 2.700000e+01 1.600000e+01 2.430000e+02
[6] 6.400000e+01 2.187000e+03 2.560000e+02 1.968300e+04 1.024000e+03
[11] 1.771470e+05 4.096000e+03 1.594323e+06 1.638400e+04 1.434891e+07
[16] 6.553600e+04 1.291402e+08 2.621440e+05 1.162261e+09 1.048576e+06
[21] 1.046035e+10 4.194304e+06 9.414318e+10 1.677722e+07 8.472886e+11
[26] 6.710886e+07 7.625597e+12 2.684355e+08 6.863038e+13 1.073742e+09
is the same as
> ifelse(t %% 2 == 0, 2^t, 3^t)
[1] 3.000000e+00 4.000000e+00 2.700000e+01 1.600000e+01 2.430000e+02
[6] 6.400000e+01 2.187000e+03 2.560000e+02 1.968300e+04 1.024000e+03
[11] 1.771470e+05 4.096000e+03 1.594323e+06 1.638400e+04 1.434891e+07
[16] 6.553600e+04 1.291402e+08 2.621440e+05 1.162261e+09 1.048576e+06
[21] 1.046035e+10 4.194304e+06 9.414318e+10 1.677722e+07 8.472886e+11
[26] 6.710886e+07 7.625597e+12 2.684355e+08 6.863038e+13 1.073742e+09
which is the vector result you apparently wanted. If you also want to output
the character string with the value, you could either return a list or
rewrite the print method of ifelse() to accommodate it.
HTH,
Dennis
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:36 PM, ivo welch <ivo.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> thanks, Henrique. did you mean
>
> as.vector(t(mapply(function(x, f)f(x), split(t, ((t %% 2)==0)),
> list(f, g)))) ?
>
> otherwise, you get a matrix.
>
> its a good solution, but unfortunately I don't think this can be used
> to redefine ifelse(cond,ift,iff) in a way that is transparent. the
> ift and iff functions will always be evaluated before the function
> call happens, even with lazy evaluation. :-(
>
> I still think that it makes sense to have a smarter vectorized %if% in
> a vectorized language like R. just my 5 cents.
>
> /iaw
>
> ----
> Ivo Welch (ivo.we...@brown.edu, ivo.we...@gmail.com)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Henrique Dallazuanna <www...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Try this:
> >
> > mapply(function(x, f)f(x), split(t, t %% 2), list(g, f))
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:19 PM, ivo welch <ivo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> dear R experts---
> >>
> >> t <- 1:30
> >> f <- function(t) { cat("f for", t, "\n"); return(2*t) }
> >> g <- function(t) { cat("g for", t, "\n"); return(3*t) }
> >> s <- ifelse( t%%2==0, g(t), f(t))
> >>
> >> shows that the ifelse function actually evaluates both f() and g() for
> >> all values first, and presumably then just picks left or right results
> >> based on t%%2. uggh... wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate only
> >> the relevant parts of each vector and then reassemble them?
> >>
> >> /iaw
> >> ----
> >> Ivo Welch
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________
> >> R-help@r-project.org mailing list
> >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> >> PLEASE do read the posting guide
> >> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> >> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Henrique Dallazuanna
> > Curitiba-Paraná-Brasil
> > 25° 25' 40" S 49° 16' 22" O
> >
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-help@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide
> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
