On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:13:42 +0000 (GMT)
Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Frank E Harrell Jr wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:17:39 +0000 (GMT)
> > Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Are you sure there is a measurable difference in calling methods
> > > directly? The dispatch overhead on formula (one of your uses)
> > > appears to be about 10 microseconds. (Note, negligible even for
> > > 10,000 bootstraps.)
> > >
> > > I believe we took the real performance penalties into account (and
> > > namespaces had performance pluses as well as minuses).
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > I don't worry about dispatch overhead. I do worry about overhead of
> > assembling model matrices, removing rows with NAs, etc. -Frank
>
> Here is what you said:
>
> > The point of calling methods directly is efficiency, otherwise I would
> > not use this dirty practice. When bootstrapping or otherwise calling
> > methods
>
> and your code is failing in R-devel because you are calling
> formula.default. So, *why* are you calling formula.default?
That was fixed 16Dec03 for the next version to be submitted to CRAN. I no
longer call formula.default.
>
> Calling e.g. glm.fit not glm is not to do with methods, and apparently
> survfit.km is not a method.
You're right, it just has to do with survfit.km needing to be exported.
Frank
---
Frank E Harrell Jr Professor and Chair School of Medicine
Department of Biostatistics Vanderbilt University
______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
