" I like to use 1:n when I'm teaching debugging, because it looks so safe but isn't."
Duncan Murdoch ---------------- ... operator precedence providing lots of examples, e.g. > 1: 2*3 [1] 3 6 ## vs > seq_len(2*3) [1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cheers, Bert Bert Gunter Genentech Nonclinical Biostatistics -----Original Message----- From: r-help-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-help-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Duncan Murdoch Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 1:41 PM To: Peter Ehlers Cc: r-help@r-project.org Subject: Re: [R] Using seq_len() vs 1:n On 11/02/2010 3:39 PM, Peter Ehlers wrote: > R-people, > > Duncan Murdoch's response in > > https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2010-February/227869.html > > reminded me of something I had been meaning to ask. > > A while ago I started using > > for(i in seq_len(v)) {....} > > in preference to > > for(i in 1:n) {....} > > Duncan's post shows that if n can be zero, there is > an advantage to using seq_len. > Is there ever a *dis*advantage? I like to use 1:n when I'm teaching debugging, because it looks so safe but isn't. 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. ______________________________________________ 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.
