Will Gray wrote:
Perhaps this is the intended behavior, but I discovered that unsplit
throws an error when it tries to set rownames of a variable that has no
dimension. This occurs when unsplit is passed a list of data.frames
that have only a single column.
An example:
df <- data.frame(le
Hi,
I find it a bit annoying that aggregate.default forces the returned
object to loose the 'name' of the variable aggregated, replacing it with
'x'.
A brief example:
> dat <- data.frame(A = runif(100), B = rnorm(100),
+ Group = gl(4, 25))
> with(dat, aggregate(A, by = list(Gr
Try this:
> aggregate(dat["A"], dat["Group"], mean)
Group A
1 1 0.4944810
2 2 0.4765412
3 3 0.4521068
4 4 0.4989000
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Gavin Simpson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I find it a bit annoying that aggregate.default forces the returned
> object to loose the '
On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 08:23 -0400, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> Try this:
>
> > aggregate(dat["A"], dat["Group"], mean)
> Group A
> 1 1 0.4944810
> 2 2 0.4765412
> 3 3 0.4521068
> 4 4 0.4989000
Thanks Gabor. Ideally, aggregate.default should "work" whatever indexing
one u
At 14:18 08/05/2009, Martin Maechler wrote:
> "PS" == Petr Savicky
> on Fri, 8 May 2009 11:01:55 +0200 writes:
Somewhere below Martin asks for alternatives from list readers. I do
not have alternatives, but I do have two comments, one immediately
below this, the other embedded i
> William Dunlap
> on Fri, 8 May 2009 16:16:56 -0700 writes:
> With today's R 2.10.0(devel) I get:
>> anyDuplicated(c(1,NA,3,NA,5), incomp=NA) # expect 0
> Warning: stack imbalance in 'anyDuplicated', 20 then 21
> Warning: stack imbalance in '.Internal', 19 then 20
Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> Will Gray wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps this is the intended behavior, but I discovered that unsplit
>> throws an error when it tries to set rownames of a variable that has
>> no dimension. This occurs when unsplit is passed a list of
>> data.frames that have only a single column.
>
> "PS" == Petr Savicky
> on Fri, 8 May 2009 18:10:56 +0200 writes:
PS> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 05:14:48PM +0200, Petr Savicky wrote:
>> Let me suggest to consider the following modification, where match() is
done
>> on the strings, not on the original values.
>> level
