I picked the example from segmenting chromosomes for a reason. I have a fair chunk of code that deals with not quite exceeding the amount of RAM available in the machine sitting on my desktop. If I use functions, then the pass-by-value semantics of R will push me beyond the limits at some points. (This is an empirical statement, not a theoretical one. I was bitten by it several times while trying to analyze a couple of these datasets. And, yes, I know I can get around this by buying a bigger and better machine; it's on order...) The real point is that using functions can be detrimental to the efficiency of the program, in ways that have real world consequences.

I haven't thought about doing the same thing with expressions. Expressions don't have quite the same semantics as chunks, and you'd have to make sure the evaluation was delayed so that you cold use the current values of things that were computed in the meantime.... and I already know how to do this with chunks without having to think so hard.

Using expressons would, however, help with the one difficulty that I have with reusing <<chunks>> (independent of whether or not I use 'expand=FALSE'). I usually work inside emacs, using the emacs-speaks-statistics (ESS) package. ESS doesn't know how to evaluate the <<chunk>> call inside another chunk. so if I want to step through the code during development, I have to jump around myself to locate the source chunks. With expressions that wouldn't matter.

As I ramble on about this, it occurs to me that the underlying issue is that <<chunks>> are not first class objects either in the LaTeX world or in the R world part of Sweave. If there were a way to promote them to first class objects somehow, then it might make my use of ESS easier while simultaneously making it easier for Duncan to figure out how to report the correct line numbers. But I only have an extremely vague idea of how one might start to do that...

   Kevin

Matt Shotwell wrote:
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 17:07 -0400, Kevin Coombes wrote:
I use it, frequently. The idea for it goes back to some of Knuth's original literate programming ideas for developing weave and tangle when he was writing TeX (the program). I want to be able to document the pieces of some complex algorithm without having to see all of the gory details. For instance, I have code that looks like the following. (Note that this is typed on the fly rather than copied from actual source, so there may be typos.)

<<mainloop,keep.source=TRUE,expand=FALSE>>=
for (i in 1:nSamples) {
<<getInfoAboutThisSample>>
 for (j in 1:nChromosomes) {
<<getChromosomeDataForCurrentSample>>
<<normalizeChromosomeData>>
<<findSegments>>
<<computeSignificance>>
<<writeResults>>
 }
}
@

Each of the <<chunks>> is itself a fairly long piece of code defined and documented somewhere else. (Some of them may themselves be written in the same form to reduce the final size of a chunk to something a human has a chance of understanding. That's the difference between weave and tangle in the original implementation.) By blocking expansion, I can focus on the main steps without having them lost in pages and pages of code.


Couldn't you achieve the same amount of abstraction using function
calls, rather than embedded code chunks? The reader can then see real
code, rather than non-code, or meta-code, or whatever. Alternatively,
represent the code chunks as R expressions, then evaluate the
expressions at the appropriate points.

-Matt

So I vote strongly for retaining "expand=FALSE".

Best,
    Kevin

Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 19/08/2010 4:29 PM, Claudia Beleites wrote:
I never used it.

I got curious, though. What would be a situation that benefits of this option?
When I put it in, I thought it would be for people who were writing about Sweave.

Duncan Murdoch

Maybe a use case could be found by "brute force" (grep all .Rnw files on CRAN for the option?

Claudia


______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel



______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Reply via email to