On 30/12/2008 1:18 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:53 PM, hadley wickham <h.wick...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 10:21 AM, baptiste auguie <ba...@exeter.ac.uk> wrote:
I thought this was a good candidate for the plyr package, but it seems that
l*ply functions are meant to operate only on separate list elements:...
Perhaps a new case to consider?
Possibly, but here I would argue that the choice of data structure
isn't quite right - if the matrices all have the same dimension, then
they should be stored in an array, not a list
That may be a reasonable representation, but I don't see why you'd
want to require it. In general, I'm not sure I understand the logical
intuition behind the distinction between generic vectors (lists) and
atomic vectors in many places in R (though of course I do understand
that generic vectors have more *implementation* overhead for type
tagging and garbage collection).
Could you give an example that you find unintuitive? The obvious
distinctions are that lists contain unlike things, while atomic vectors
contain like things, and lists contain anything, while atomic vectors
contain simple things, but I think you know both of those.
Duncan Murdoch
______________________________________________
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.
