On Jan 4, 2012, at 16:32 , David Winsemius wrote:
>
> On Jan 4, 2012, at 9:17 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 4, 2012, at 14:57 , Milan Bouchet-Valat wrote:
>>
>>> Le mercredi 04 janvier 2012 à 08:41 -0500, Dan Abner a écrit :
Hello everyone,
I have the following call
On Jan 4, 2012, at 9:17 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
On Jan 4, 2012, at 14:57 , Milan Bouchet-Valat wrote:
Le mercredi 04 janvier 2012 à 08:41 -0500, Dan Abner a écrit :
Hello everyone,
I have the following call to sapply() and error message. Is the most
efficient way to deal with this to mak
On Jan 4, 2012, at 14:57 , Milan Bouchet-Valat wrote:
> Le mercredi 04 janvier 2012 à 08:41 -0500, Dan Abner a écrit :
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I have the following call to sapply() and error message. Is the most
>> efficient way to deal with this to make sum(!is.na(x)) a function in a
>> separa
Dan,
It depends on what you want to achieve. I suspect you just want to remove
missing values before summing; if so, consider
sapply(x, sum, na.rm=TRUE)
instead. To make your code running, try
sapply(x, function(x) sum(!is.na(x)))
However, this would just count the number of non-missing value
On Jan 4, 2012, at 7:41 AM, Dan Abner wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have the following call to sapply() and error message. Is the most
> efficient way to deal with this to make sum(!is.na(x)) a function in a
> separate line prior to this call?
Yes or inline using an anonymous/lambda function
Le mercredi 04 janvier 2012 à 08:41 -0500, Dan Abner a écrit :
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have the following call to sapply() and error message. Is the most
> efficient way to deal with this to make sum(!is.na(x)) a function in a
> separate line prior to this call? If not, please advise.
>
> N.Valid
6 matches
Mail list logo
