By the way, seq() is a function. May be it is not a interesting name for
object name :-)
milton
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Duncan Murdoch <murd...@stats.uwo.ca>wrote:
> Liaw, Andy wrote:
>
>> A colleague and I were trying to understand all the possible things one
>> can do with for loops in R, and found some surprises. I think we've
>> done sufficient detective work to have a good guess as to what's going
>> on "underneath", but it would be nice to get some confirmation, and
>> better yet, perhaps documentation in the R-lang manual. Basically, the
>> question is, how/what does R do with the loop index variable? Below are
>> some examples:
>>
>>
>
> I think it is documented in the ?Control topic that a copy of the seq
> argument (the 1:2 in your first example) is made at the beginning, and that
> altering var (your i) doesn't affect the loop. One other thing you didn't
> investigate is what is the value of an expression like
>
> loopval <- for (i in 1:2) { i }
>
> This sets loopval to 2, but in R-devel (2.10.0 to be) this has changed:
> loops now have NULL as their value.
>
>
>
> R> for (i in 1:2) { i <- 17; print(i) }
>> [1] 17
>> [1] 17
>> R> print(i)
>> [1] 17
>> R> x <- 1:2
>> R> for (i in x) { print(i); rm(i) }
>> [1] 1
>> [1] 2
>> R> i
>> Error: object 'i' not found
>> R> for (i in x) { print(i); rm(x) }
>> [1] 1
>> [1] 2
>> Warning message:
>> In rm(x) : object 'x' not found
>> R> i
>> [1] 2
>> R> x <- 1:2
>> R> for (i in x) { print(i); i <- 17; print(i) }
>> [1] 1
>> [1] 17
>> [1] 2
>> [1] 17
>>
>> The guess is that at the beginning for the loop, R makes a copy of the
>> object that's being looped over ("x" in examples above) somewhere "under
>> cover", and at the beginning of each iteration, assign the "current"
>> element to the index variable ("I" in the examples above). This is the
>> only logical explanation I can come up with given the behavior observed
>> above. Can anyone confirm/deny this? If this is true, one thing to
>> consider is not to use a large object to loop over (e.g., columns of a
>> very large data frame).
>>
>>
>
> It is uncommon to modify seq (your x) in the loop. In the usual case where
> you don't modify it, the fact that the loop has made a copy should not
> matter: R won't actually copy the complete object until one version of it
> is changed.
>
> So this sequence
>
> seq <- data.frame(a=1:1000000, b=1:1000000)
> for (var in seq) { print(var[1]) }
>
> hardly uses any more memory during the loop than it used in creating seq,
> but this sequence
>
> for (var in seq) { seq$b[1] <- -1; print(var[1]) }
>
> uses a lot more: seq is modified so a copy is made, and seq$b is modified
> after var is set to it, so a copy is made of that too. Both of the loops
> print two 1's, by the way.
>
> Duncan Murdoch
>
>> Andy
>>
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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<http://www.r-project.org/posting-guide.html>
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
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.
