f3 <- function() {
( a <- 5 )
}
f4 <- function() {
a <- 5
a
}
On my machine f1,f2, and f4 all perform approx. the same. The () in
f3 adds about 20% overhead.
Jeff
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote:
> For those of you "familiar with R", here's a little quiz. What what's the
> difference between:
>
>
> f1 <- function(){
> a=5
> }
> f1()
>
> f2 <- function(){
> return(a=5)
> }
> f2()
>
>
> Kevin Wright
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Geoff Jentry <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, David Scott wrote:
>>
>>> 4. We don't want gratuitous use of "return" at the end of functions.
>>>> Why do people still do that?
>>>>
>>> Well I for one (and Jeff as well it seems) think it is good programming
>>> practice. It makes explicit what is being returned eliminating the
>>> possibility of mistakes and provides clarity for anyone reading the code.
>>>
>>
>> You're unnecessarily adding the overhead of a function call by explicitly
>> calling return().
>>
>> Sure it seems odd for someone coming from the C/C++/Java/etc world, but
>> anyone familiar with R should find code that doesn't have an explicit
>> return() call to be fully readable & clear.
>>
>> -J
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> [email protected] mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> [email protected] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
--
Jeffrey Ryan
[email protected]
www.lemnica.com
______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
