Thank you all for your answers!
Enjoy the rest of the weekend
Joseph
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, mi
Hi,
Yes you can. As William says, the 'seq_len' approach seems to be better.
'head' function is the wrapper for 'seq_len' approach and slower.
I didn't know that '-length(x)' approach is slow for long vectors
--
Noia Raindrops
noia.raindr...@gmail.com
__
On Aug 25, 2012, at 4:23 AM, Sepp Tannhuber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for your quick answers! These solve my problem.
>
> Now I have another question. I think I can use
> head(y, -1)
> instead of
> y[-length(y)]
>
> Are there differences in terms of performance?
The latter is marginally
these idioms may change as R evolves.
Bill Dunlap
Spotfire, TIBCO Software
wdunlap tibco.com
> -Original Message-
> From: r-help-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-help-boun...@r-project.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Sepp Tannhuber
> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 2:24 AM
> To:
Hi,
thanks for your quick answers! These solve my problem.
Now I have another question. I think I can use
head(y, -1)
instead of
y[-length(y)]
Are there differences in terms of performance?
Best regards
Joseph
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing lis
Hi,
try below:
x <- c(1:20)
y <- c(1, 5, 10, 14)
x[ c( (y[1]+2):(y[2]-1), (y[2]+2):(y[3]-1), (y[3]+2):(y[4]-1) ) ]
x[unlist(lapply(1:(length(y) - 1), function (i) (y[i] + 2) : (y[i + 1] - 1)))]
x[unlist(mapply(seq, y[-length(y)] + 2, y[-1] - 1, SIMPLIFY = FALSE))]
--
Noia Raindrops
noia.raindr
6 matches
Mail list logo