Gabor came close to the situation I had yesterday
that prompted me to write a local version of 'lower.tri'.
It was approximately:
x[sub, sub][lower.tri(x[sub,sub])]
Pat
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> On 8/6/06, Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Is there a case to be made for this?
On 8/6/06, Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a case to be made for this? If so, where is it?
>
> (I don't find x[lower.tri(x)] harder to write than lower.tri(x,
> value=TRUE), and wonder why you do?
The reasons are
1. x might be the result of an expression. Without value=
Is there a case to be made for this? If so, where is it?
(I don't find x[lower.tri(x)] harder to write than lower.tri(x,
value=TRUE), and wonder why you do? For grep, one can argue that handling
empty sets is clearer with value=, but I have seen quite a few uses where
that is not used and cou
I propose that a 'value' argument be added to
'lower.tri' and 'upper.tri'. This is analogous to
the 'value' argument of 'grep'.
Something like the following should work:
> upper.tri
function (x, diag = FALSE, value = FALSE)
{
x <- as.matrix(x)
if (diag)
ans <- row(x) <= col(x)
