Re: [Rd] RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA)

ecified 'default' is NaN. On Sat, 4/2/17, Martin Maechler <maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: Subject: Re: [Rd] RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA) Cc: R-devel@r-project.org Date: Saturday, 4 February, 2017, 10:48 PM >>>>>

Re: [Rd] RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA)

-- > On Wed, 1/2/17, Martin Maechler > <maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: > Subject: Re: [Rd] RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA) > Cc: R-devel@r-project.org Date: Wednesday, 1 February, > 2017, 12:14 AM >>>>> Suharto Anggono S

Re: [Rd] RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA)

. The documentation could then say, for example: "If default = NA (the default), NA of appropriate storage mode (0 for raw) is automatically used." On Wed, 1/2/17, Martin Maechler <maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: Subject: Re:

Re: [Rd] RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA)

> Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono via R-devel > on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:43:53 + writes: > Function 'aggregate.data.frame' in R has taken a different route. With drop=FALSE, the function is also applied to subset corresponding to combination of grouping

Re: [Rd] RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA)

Function 'aggregate.data.frame' in R has taken a different route. With drop=FALSE, the function is also applied to subset corresponding to combination of grouping variables that doesn't appear in the data (example 2 in https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2017-January/073678.html). Because

Re: [Rd] RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA)

> Henrik Bengtsson > on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:46:15 -0800 writes: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Martin Maechler > wrote: >> >> > On Jan 26, 2017 07:50, "William Dunlap via R-devel" >>

Re: [Rd] RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: > > > On Jan 26, 2017 07:50, "William Dunlap via R-devel" > > > wrote: > > > It would be cool if the default for tapply's init.value could be > > FUN(X[0]), so it would be

Re: [Rd] RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA)

> Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono via R-devel > on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:36:59 + writes: > The "no factor combination" case is distinguishable by 'tapply' with simplify=FALSE. >> D2 <- data.frame(n = gl(3,4), L = gl(6,2, labels=LETTERS[1:6]), N=3)

Re: [Rd] RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA)

The "no factor combination" case is distinguishable by 'tapply' with simplify=FALSE. > D2 <- data.frame(n = gl(3,4), L = gl(6,2, labels=LETTERS[1:6]), N=3) > D2 <- D2[-c(1,5), ] > DN <- D2; DN[1,"N"] <- NA > with(DN, tapply(N, list(n,L), FUN=sum, simplify=FALSE)) ABCDEF 1

Re: [Rd] RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA)

If xtabs is enhanced then as.data.frame.table may also need to be modified so that it continues to be usable as an inverse, at least to the degree feasible. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:42 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: > Last week, we've talked here about "xtabs(), factors

Re: [Rd] RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA)

> On Jan 26, 2017 07:50, "William Dunlap via R-devel" > wrote: > It would be cool if the default for tapply's init.value could be > FUN(X[0]), so it would be 0 for FUN=sum or FUN=length, TRUE for > FUN=all, -Inf for FUN=max, etc. But that would take

Re: [Rd] RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA)

On a related note, the storage mode should try to match ans[[1]] (or unlist:ed and) when allocating 'ansmat' to avoid coercion and hence a full copy. Henrik On Jan 26, 2017 07:50, "William Dunlap via R-devel" wrote: It would be cool if the default for tapply's

Re: [Rd] RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA)

It would be cool if the default for tapply's init.value could be FUN(X[0]), so it would be 0 for FUN=sum or FUN=length, TRUE for FUN=all, -Inf for FUN=max, etc. But that would take time and would break code for which FUN did not work on length-0 objects. Bill Dunlap TIBCO Software wdunlap

[Rd] RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA)

Last week, we've talked here about "xtabs(), factors and NAs", -> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2017-January/073621.html In the mean time, I've spent several hours on the issue and also committed changes to R-devel "in two iterations". In the case there is a *Left* hand side part to