Pat Burns makes a good point. -Peter -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [R] Using seq_len() vs 1:n Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:01:20 +0000 From: Patrick Burns <pbu...@pburns.seanet.com> To: Peter Ehlers <ehl...@ucalgary.ca> References: <4b746aef.10...@ucalgary.ca>
If you want your code to be compatible with S+, then 'seq_len' isn't going to work. On 11/02/2010 20:39, 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? Peter Ehlers University of Calgary ______________________________________________ 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.
-- Patrick Burns pbu...@pburns.seanet.com http://www.burns-stat.com (home of 'The R Inferno' and 'A Guide for the Unwilling S User') -- Peter Ehlers University of Calgary ______________________________________________ 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.
