On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Romain Francois wrote:
Le 11.04.2006 14:12, Prof Brian Ripley a écrit :
That's an interesting suggestion, but
1) it is not a good idea to change the order of arguments in a function.
Yes, my mystake. It's because i like to call 'history(something)' directly
and not 'history(pattern=something)'.
I hadn't in mind the possibility to break existing code.
2) is the 'unique' argument useful? I cannot see it being used if
there is no pattern search, nor I do see the merit in showing repeated
lines if I have subselected.
3) like ls(), testing if 'pattern' were missing or NULL would be a better
idea.
Right.
There is also a problem with the order of the calls.
If I do :
ls()
l <- mean(rnorm(50))
ls()
history(pattern="^l")
it prints :
ls()
l <- mean(rnorm(50))
when it should print :
l <- mean(rnorm(50))
ls()
Well, maybe sorting would be useful here.
BTW, your code also fails (prints NA) if there are not matches.
We can use rev twice (like in history3 below), but is it worth it ?
history3 <-
function (max.show = 25, reverse = FALSE, pattern, ...)
{
file1 <- tempfile("Rrawhist")
savehistory(file1)
rawhist <- scan(file1, what = "", quiet = TRUE, sep = "\n")
if(!missing(pattern)) rawhist <- rev( unique( rev(rawhist[grep(pattern,
rawhist, ...)] ) ) )
unlink(file1)
nlines <- length(rawhist)
inds <- max(1, nlines - max.show):nlines
if (reverse)
inds <- rev(inds)
file2 <- tempfile("hist")
write(rawhist[inds], file2)
file.show(file2, title = "R History", delete.file = TRUE)
}
--
Brian D. Ripley, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
