>> Oh yes, that's a good point. But wouldn't the following do the job?
>>
>> "&.selector" <- function(a, b) {
>> function(n) a(n) & b(n)
>> }
>>
>> or
>>
>> "&.selector" <- function(a, b) {
>> function(n) intersect(a(n), b(n))
>> }
>>
>> depending on whether selectors return logical or numeric vectors.
>> Writing functions for | and ! would be similarly easy. Or am I
>> missing something?
>
> No, I think those definitions would be fine, but I'd be concerned about
> speed issues if we start messing with primitives.
Speed or expressiveness: pick one? ;) People could always use the
regular subsetting mechanisms if they want the best speed - any
changes to support selectors wouldn't affect the speed of the other
methods of subsetting, would they?
> While we're at it, we might as well do the same sort of thing for :, and
> define a selector named end, and then 3:end would give a selector from 3 to
> the end, which brings us back to the original question. So it's not nearly
> as intrusive as I thought it would be.
3:end() do you mean? Or do you mean extending seq so that it uses
unevaluted input?
Hadley
--
http://had.co.nz/
______________________________________________
R-help@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.
