(Apologies if this is better suited for R-help.)
On my system (macOS Sierra, late 2014 MacBook Pro; R 3.4.1, Homebrew build), I
found that it is faster to construct a function using eval(call("function",
...)) than using as.function(list(...)). Example:
make_fn_1 <- function(a, b) eval(call
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Gregory Werbin
wrote:
> (Apologies if this is better suited for R-help.)
>
> On my system (macOS Sierra, late 2014 MacBook Pro; R 3.4.1, Homebrew build),
> I found that it is faster to construct a function using eval(call("function",
> ...)) than using as.functio
On 04/08/2017 12:32 AM, Gregory Werbin wrote:
(Apologies if this is better suited for R-help.)
On my system (macOS Sierra, late 2014 MacBook Pro; R 3.4.1, Homebrew build), I found that
it is faster to construct a function using eval(call("function", ...)) than
using as.function(list(...)). Exa
I'm not entirely sure this even qualifies as a bug given how unusual a case it
is:
> x <- list('a')
> name.x <- '\x81'
> Encoding(name.x) <- 'bytes'
> names(x) <- name.x
> x
$`\\x81`[1] "a"> c(x)Error: translating strings with "bytes" encoding is not
allowed
> unlist(x)
Error in unlist(x) :
tr
