The : operator does give a numeric, non-integer result
when integer would not be sufficient:
1.1:10.1
On Jan 30, 2008 9:28 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, I get your point.
>
> On the other hand, R is not only for high level programmer. On low
> level, the fact that ":" change the type is
Ok, I get your point.
On the other hand, R is not only for high level programmer. On low
level, the fact that ":" change the type is strange. Is it not possible
to define two operator ? A "::" that will be use only for indexing and
that will be integer (for efficiency) and a ":" that will be us
On Jan 29, 2008 10:40 PM, Christophe Genolini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> x[c(2,4)] work as well
My point is that that at the native-code level subsetting/enumeration
is done by integer indices and coercion from double to integer is
always going to less efficient than working directly with intege
x[c(2,4)] work as well
Henrik Bengtsson a écrit :
> x[1:n]
>
> /H
>
> On Jan 29, 2008 5:07 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Seems strange to me to define an operator relatively to a very special case.
>> I have to admit that I do not use 1:1e7 every day :-)
>>
>> Wouldn't it be more appropr
x[1:n]
/H
On Jan 29, 2008 5:07 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems strange to me to define an operator relatively to a very special case.
> I have to admit that I do not use 1:1e7 every day :-)
>
> Wouldn't it be more appropriate to define a a:b operator numeric (that
> is preserving the init
Seems strange to me to define an operator relatively to a very special case.
I have to admit that I do not use 1:1e7 every day :-)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to define a a:b operator numeric (that
is preserving the initial class of a and b) and in specific case that
need optimization, chang
On 28-Jan-08 22:40:02, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> [...]
> AFAIR, space is/was more of an issue. If you do something like
>
> for i in 1:1e7
> some.silly.simulation()
>
> then you have 40 MB sitting there doing nothing, and 80 MB if
> it had been floating point.
Hmmm ... there's something to be
> Further to the above: The help
>
> ?":"
>
> says:
>
> Value:
> For numeric arguments [as opposed to factors],
> a numeric vector. This will be of type 'integer'
> if 'from' and 'to' are both integers and
> representable in the integer type, otherwise of
> type 'numeric'
???
This is
(Ted Harding) wrote:
> Further to the above: The help
>
> ?":"
>
> says:
>
> Value:
> For numeric arguments [as opposed to factors],
> a numeric vector. This will be of type 'integer'
> if 'from' and 'to' are both integers and
> representable in the integer type, otherwise of
> type 'nu
On 28-Jan-08 21:23:12, Roland Rau wrote:
> Christophe Genolini wrote:
>> Hi the list.
>>
>> I do not understand the philosophy behind numeric and integer.
>> - 1 is numeric (which I find surprising)
>> - 2 is numeric.
>> - 1:2 is integer.
>> Why is that ?
>>
> I hope I can answer your question
Christophe Genolini wrote:
> Hi the list.
>
> I do not understand the philosophy behind numeric and integer.
> - 1 is numeric (which I find surprising)
> - 2 is numeric.
> - 1:2 is integer.
> Why is that ?
>
I hope I can answer your question at least partly:
Numeric means "double", i.e. intern
Hi the list.
I do not understand the philosophy behind numeric and integer.
- 1 is numeric (which I find surprising)
- 2 is numeric.
- 1:2 is integer.
Why is that ?
Christophe
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinf
12 matches
Mail list logo
