Peter McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's a good point.
What's a good point? [this is why top-posting isn't so helpful].
What's the overhead on digests like that?
Depends on the digest algorithm, the implementation, etc. To some
extent, you can just try it and see. Or you can
Hello,
I'm running an algorithm for graph structural cohesion that requires
a depth-first search of subgraphs of a rather large network. The
algorithm will necessarily be redundant in the subgraphs it recurses
to, so to speed up the process I implemented a check at each subgraph
to see if
Well, I hadn't ever seen RBGL before, so that's great. I've been
using igraph and sna mainly, but there are a few points lacking
between these two. RBGL solves a lot of problems for me!
But I'm not sure it will solve this specific problem. Are you
suggesting I use RBGL to do a depth-first
Peter McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I hadn't ever seen RBGL before, so that's great. I've been
using igraph and sna mainly, but there are a few points lacking
between these two. RBGL solves a lot of problems for me!
But I'm not sure it will solve this specific problem. Are you
Thanks, I'll give it a try. does R have a limit on variable name
length? Also, is it better to over-estimate or under-estimate the
size parameter?
This won't be too hard to implement, either, as I'm already keeping
the list in a specific environment so all the subprocesses can find
the
I just tried it and there seems to be a limit of about 256 characters in a
variable name:
# worked
assign(paste(sample(letters,256,T), collapse=''),123,env=x)
# failed at 257 characters
assign(paste(sample(letters,257,T), collapse=''),123,env=x)
Error in assign(paste(sample(letters, 257, T),
Peter McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks, I'll give it a try. does R have a limit on variable name
length?
If you are going to have very long names, you might be better off
computing a digest of some kind. You could use the digest package to
compute an md5sum or the Ruuid package to
That's a good point. What's the overhead on digests like that? Also,
does that open up the possibility, exceedingly small though it may
be, of misidentifying a branch as already searched and missing a
qualifying subgraph?
On Mar 16, 2007, at 2:02 PM, Seth Falcon wrote:
Peter McMahan
