In fact, I took over the code of someone else, but I agree with you. It is
really a mess and very hard to understand the code if you haven't programmed
it. So you would suggest to put everything in functions and therefore have
only very little return variables to work with. This also should limit t
Comment (caveat emptor):
If I understand correctly, your difficulties all stem from your use of
the word "script," which betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the
nature of R as a programming language.
R is based (mostly) on the concepts of functional programming. So
instead of doing what as
Thank you for the idea with caching...
Alexander
Alexander wrote
>
> Hi
>
> thank you for your suggestions, but I am not sure if I explained my
> problem well enough. Lets asume, that I have 30 different script files and
> 1 script which calls these 30 scripts one after the other by "source".
Hi
thank you for your suggestions, but I am not sure if I explained my problem
well enough. Lets asume, that I have 30 different script files and 1 script
which calls these 30 scripts one after the other by "source". Some of the 30
scripts only contain definitions of functions which are called in
Alexander,
If Tal's suggestion to use caching in Sweave doesn't appeal to you, you
might look at 'R.cache' and other packages mentioned in
http://cran.r-project.org/web/views/ReproducibleResearch.html
under 'Caching of R Objects'.
However, an advantage of the Sweave-like approaches is that y
Hi Alexander,
Saving full environments is possible, but it is very easy to start loosing
track on where each variable came from.
You might want to use this process:
http://www.r-bloggers.com/a-better-way-of-saving-and-loading-objects-in-r/
It depends on how many variables you work with, but it migh
6 matches
Mail list logo
