Hi Thomas:
Thanks for your explanation.
You are right that in C++, we try to use the same piece of codes
on different type of objects. While in R, most operations are done in a
"vector" way automatically, which reduced the need for containers.
Best,
Feng
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Lumley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Feng Qiu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Duncan Murdoch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch>
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [R] Any container in R?
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2007, Feng Qiu wrote:
>
>> Hi Duncan:
>> Thank you very much! I checked out unique(), it does exactly what
>> I
>> want. But I'm still curious about if R provides "STL"(standard template
>> library).
>
> No.
>
> Some things the STL does aren't needed in R, others are implemented
> differently, and others aren't implemented.
>
> One particularly important example is iterators, which will often either
> happen invisibly due to vectorized operations or will be done with the
> *apply family of functions.
>
> Your example could have been done either way. Using duplicated() is the
> vectorized approach; the apply approach would use tapply().
>
> C++ is not terribly similar to R. A lot of the effort in STL is expended
> on allowing a piece of code to be used on different types (where
> appropriate). In R you have to expend effort on stopping a piece of code
> being used on different types (where inappropriate).
>
>
> -thomas
>
> Thomas Lumley Assoc. Professor, Biostatistics
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Washington, Seattle
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch 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.
