nt: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:31 AM
To: Duncan Murdoch
Cc: R help
Subject: Re: [R] Variable passed to function not used in function in
select=... in subset
G'day Duncan,
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:37:57 -0500
Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this tension is a fundament
Murdoch
Cc: R help
Subject: Re: [R] Variable passed to function not used in function in
select=... in subset
G'day Duncan,
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:37:57 -0500
Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this tension is a fundamental part of the character of S and
>
Some of the uses of non-standard evaluation are undoubtedly a problem in
R. Probably the worst is in model.frame, because it is much harder to
work around. I have never used subset(,select=) and hence have never
been at risk of confusion (if you don't like how it works, I suggest you
do the s
Berwin A Turlach wrote:
> G'day Duncan,
>
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:37:57 -0500
> Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think this tension is a fundamental part of the character of S and
>> R. But it is also fundamental to R that there are QC tests that apply
>> to code in packages: so
Gavin Simpson wrote:
>
>> my whole posting is an attempt, may you try to notice.
>>
>> vQ
>>
>
> Did you read what you wrote. And you still wonder why you get little
> response from certain quarters?
>
> 1) Don't say "no further comment" - that is quite arrogant to think that
> you are right a
Gavin Simpson wrote:
>
> I've found several of these discussions involving Wacek's questions very
> enlightening at times; once you get past the "it doesn't work as I
> expect so is wrong" attitude.
>
just one fix: my attitude is 'it doesn't work as i imagine an average
user would expect it s
G'day Duncan,
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:37:57 -0500
Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this tension is a fundamental part of the character of S and
> R. But it is also fundamental to R that there are QC tests that apply
> to code in packages: so writing new tests that detect danger
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:53:31 +0100
Wacek Kusnierczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but seriously, when one buys a complicated device one typically reads
> a quick start guide, and makes intuitive assumptions about how the
> device will work, turning back to the reference when the expectations
> fai
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:27:30 +0100
Wacek Kusnierczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Berwin A Turlach wrote:
> > Why is it worth asking this if nobody else asks it? Most notably a
> > certain software company in Redmond, Washington, which is famous for
> > carrying on with bad designs and bugs all
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 15:54 +0100, Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
> > Have you tried? But bear in mind that R Core has more to balance that
> > just whether you think a design "flaw" or infelicity etc should be fixed
> > when it decides whether to accept patches.
> >
>
> my whole posting is an attem
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:14 -0600, hadley wickham wrote:
> > And without wanting to be rude or anything, your opinion carries very
> > little weight in a project like R. You've arrived on the list and been
> > very critical of the work of others. Now there is nothing wrong with
> > being critical i
> I think your analysis is correct, that the goals of casual use and
> programming are inconsistent. But in general I think there's always going
> to be support for providing alternative ways that are programmer-safe.
>
> For instance, library( foo, character.only=TRUE) says that foo is a
> charac
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 11/11/2008 8:53 AM, hadley wickham wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Wacek Kusnierczyk
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> pardon me, but does this address in any way the legitimate complaint of
>>> the rightfully confused user?
>>>
>>> consider the following:
>>>
Gavin Simpson wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 11:08 +0100, Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
>
>> Gavin Simpson wrote:
>>
d = data.frame(a = 1)
d$`-b` = 2
names(d)
# here we go
subset(d, select = -b)
# to b or not to b?
>>> but -b is not the
On 11/11/2008 8:53 AM, hadley wickham wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Wacek Kusnierczyk
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
pardon me, but does this address in any way the legitimate complaint of
the rightfully confused user?
consider the following:
d = data.frame(a=1, b=2)
a = c("a", "b")
z =
> And without wanting to be rude or anything, your opinion carries very
> little weight in a project like R. You've arrived on the list and been
> very critical of the work of others. Now there is nothing wrong with
> being critical if it is constructive, and additionally with something
> like R yo
On 11/11/2008 5:00 AM, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
Radford Neal is also complaining on his blog
(http://radfordneal.wordpress.com/) about what he thinks are design
flaws in R. Why don't you two get together and design a good
substitute without any flaws? Or is that too hard? ;-)
I agree with Rad
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 11:08 +0100, Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
> Gavin Simpson wrote:
> >
> >> d = data.frame(a = 1)
> >> d$`-b` = 2
> >> names(d)
> >> # here we go
> >>
> >> subset(d, select = -b)
> >> # to b or not to b?
> >>
> >
> > but -b is not the name of the column; you explicitly called i
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Wacek Kusnierczyk
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> pardon me, but does this address in any way the legitimate complaint of
> the rightfully confused user?
>
> consider the following:
>
> d = data.frame(a=1, b=2)
> a = c("a", "b")
> z = a
> # that is, both a and z are c(
Berwin A Turlach wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:49:31 +0100
> Wacek Kusnierczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> (for whatever reason a user may choose to have a column named '-b')
>>
>
> For whatever reason, people also jump from bridges. Does that mean
> all bridges have an inherently
Petr PIKAL wrote:
>
> Well, if somebody does not care what is he/she doing then he/she should
> stop immediately.
>
then many r users should perhaps stop using r.
but seriously, when one buys a complicated device one typically reads a
quick start guide, and makes intuitive assumptions about
Hi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal dne 11.11.2008 11:32:27:
> Berwin A Turlach wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:27:41 +0100
> > Wacek Kusnierczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> but then it might be worth asking whether carrying on with misdesign
> >> for backward compatibility outbalances gua
Kenn Konstabel wrote:
>
> On the other hand, while there may be ground to complain, it may be easier
> to make your own version of subset.data.frame and advertise it to everyone:
>
>
sure, but:
a) it may actually increase the mess, and reduce portability
b) is still vulnerable to the idiosyn
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Wacek Kusnierczyk <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it's certainly hard to design and implement a system of the size of r.
> it's certainly easier to just complain rather than make a better tool.
> but it would really be a pitiful world if all of us were just
> develo
Berwin A Turlach wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:27:41 +0100
> Wacek Kusnierczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> but then it might be worth asking whether carrying on with misdesign
>> for backward compatibility outbalances guaranteed crashes in future
>> users' programs, [...]
>>
>
> Why
Berwin A Turlach wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:27:41 +0100
> Wacek Kusnierczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> but then it might be worth asking whether carrying on with misdesign
>> for backward compatibility outbalances guaranteed crashes in future
>> users' programs, [...]
>>
>
> Why
Gavin Simpson wrote:
>
>> d = data.frame(a = 1)
>> d$`-b` = 2
>> names(d)
>> # here we go
>>
>> subset(d, select = -b)
>> # to b or not to b?
>>
>
> but -b is not the name of the column; you explicitly called it `-b` and
> you should refer to it as such. If you use "non-standard" names then
>
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:49:31 +0100
Wacek Kusnierczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (for whatever reason a user may choose to have a column named '-b')
For whatever reason, people also jump from bridges. Does that mean
all bridges have an inherently flawed design and should be abolished?
Wait, th
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:27:41 +0100
Wacek Kusnierczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but then it might be worth asking whether carrying on with misdesign
> for backward compatibility outbalances guaranteed crashes in future
> users' programs, [...]
Why is it worth asking this if nobody else asks it?
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 09:49 +0100, Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
> Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> >
> > Regarding the convenience it occurs in expressions like this:
> >
> >iris2 <- subset(iris, select = - Species)
> >
> > to create a data frame without the Species column.
> >
>
> aha! so what's y
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>
> Regarding the convenience it occurs in expressions like this:
>
>iris2 <- subset(iris, select = - Species)
>
> to create a data frame without the Species column.
>
aha! so what's you best guess about the result here:
d = data.frame(a = 1)
d$`-b` = 2
names(d)
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>
> but I think R is stuck with what it has due to compatibility and the large
> base of users yet its still possible to add functions in packages or new
> functions to R so a new variant of subset would be possible in which
> case one could decide to use the new function
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Wacek Kusnierczyk
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>> Certainly this has been recognized as a potential problem:
>>
>> http://developer.r-project.org/nonstandard-eval.pdf
>>
>> however, it is convenient when you are performing
>> an analysis an
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> Certainly this has been recognized as a potential problem:
>
> http://developer.r-project.org/nonstandard-eval.pdf
>
> however, it is convenient when you are performing
> an analysis and entering commands directly as opposed
> to writing a program although possibly the p
Forgot the name part. Try:
TestFunc2 <- function(DF, group) names(DF[group])
TestFunc3 <- function(...) names(subset(..., subset = TRUE))
TestFunc4 <- function(...) eval.parent(names(subset(..., subset = TRUE)))
# e.g.
df1 <- data.frame(group = "G1", visit = "V1", value = 0.9)
TestFunc2(df1, c("
Certainly this has been recognized as a potential problem:
http://developer.r-project.org/nonstandard-eval.pdf
however, it is convenient when you are performing
an analysis and entering commands directly as opposed
to writing a program although possibly the potential ambiguities
overshadow the co
pardon me, but does this address in any way the legitimate complaint of
the rightfully confused user?
consider the following:
d = data.frame(a=1, b=2)
a = c("a", "b")
z = a
# that is, both a and z are c("a", "b")
subset(d, select=z)
# gives two columns, since z is a two element vector whose elem
On 11/10/2008 10:18 AM, Karl Knoblick wrote:
Hello!
I have the problem that in my function the passed variable is not used, but the
variable name of the dataframe itself - difficult to explain, but an easy
example:
TestFunc<-function(df, group) {
print(names(subset(df, select=group)))
}
d
Here are a few things to try:
TestFunc1 <- get("[")
TestFunc2 <- function(DF, group) DF[group]
TestFunc3 <- function(...) subset(..., subset = TRUE)
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Karl Knoblick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I have the problem that in my function the passed variab
Try this:
TestFunc<-function(df, group) {
return(names(eval(bquote(subset(df1, select = .(group))
}
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Karl Knoblick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I have the problem that in my function the passed variable is not used, but
> the variable name of the
Hello!
I have the problem that in my function the passed variable is not used, but the
variable name of the dataframe itself - difficult to explain, but an easy
example:
TestFunc<-function(df, group) {
print(names(subset(df, select=group)))
}
df1<-data.frame(group="G1", visit="V1", value=0.
41 matches
Mail list logo
