[R] Using seq_len() vs 1:n]

[Henrik Bengtsson]

If S+ has seq(length=...), that would solve any parsing problems. /Henrik

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 4:59 PM, William Dunlap <wdunlap at tibco.com> wrote:
> The next version of S+ will have seq_len in
> it.  Currently the CSAN package Rcompat contains
> it.
>
> Parsing the name seq_len can be a problem, since
> S+ 8.1 still allows the use of the underscore
> for assignment (it warns about its use, but
> allows it).  Either parse your code file in R mode
> by calling set.parse.mode("R") or use backticks,
> `seq_len`.
>
> By the way, a long time ago I proposed the syntax
>    n +: m
> to mean the increasing sequence from n up to m,
> returning integer(0) if m<n, but no one cared for
> the syntax.  (n -: m would make the analogous
> decreasing sequence.)  It would make things like
>    1 +: n
> work like seq_len(n) but also made things like
>    curMax <- x[1]
>    for(i in 2 +: length(x))
>       if (x[i] > curMax)
>           curMax <- x[i]
> a little simpler to write so it works when length(x)==1.
> Currently you might write that for statement as
>    if (length(x)>1) for(i in 2:length(x))
> or
>    for(i in as.integer(seq(from=2L, length=length(x)-1))) # seq(len=)
> -> numeric, not integer
> or
>    for(i in 1L + seq_len(length(x)-1))
>
> Bill Dunlap
> Spotfire, TIBCO Software
> wdunlap tibco.com
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: r-help-bounces at r-project.org
>> [mailto:r-help-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Peter Ehlers
>> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 3:48 AM
>> To: r-help at r-project.org
>> Subject: Re: [R] Using seq_len() vs 1:n]
>>
>> Pat Burns makes a good point. -Peter
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [R] Using seq_len() vs 1:n
>> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:01:20 +0000
>> From: Patrick Burns <pburns at pburns.seanet.com>
>> To: Peter Ehlers <ehlers at ucalgary.ca>
>> References: <4B746AEF.10900 at ucalgary.ca>
>>
>> If you want your code to be compatible with
>> S+, then 'seq_len' isn't going to work.
>>
>> On 11/02/2010 20:39, Peter Ehlers wrote:
>> > R-people,
>> >
>> > Duncan Murdoch's response in
>> >
>> > https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2010-February/227869.html
>> >
>> > reminded me of something I had been meaning to ask.
>> >
>> > A while ago I started using
>> >
>> > for(i in seq_len(v)) {....}
>> >
>> > in preference to
>> >
>> > for(i in 1:n) {....}
>> >
>> > Duncan's post shows that if n can be zero, there is
>> > an advantage to using seq_len.
>> > Is there ever a *dis*advantage?
>> >
>> > Peter Ehlers
>> > University of Calgary
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________
>> > R-help at 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.
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Patrick Burns
>> pburns at pburns.seanet.com
>> http://www.burns-stat.com
>> (home of 'The R Inferno' and 'A Guide for the Unwilling S User')
>>
>> --
>> Peter Ehlers
>> University of Calgary
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-help at 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.
>>
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-help at 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.
>