Both versions do not do what I am looking for, as they do not differentiate
where the NA is, if there is just one.
My original wished for result therefore holts, but should probably be
rewritten
c(NA,"B","AB","A")Joh On Monday 17 January 2011 14:06:30 Patrick Burns wrote: > Simpler would be: > > rowSums(is.na(df)) > > On 17/01/2011 10:13, Ivan Calandra wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I hope you made a mistake in c(NA,"TWO","BOTH","ONE") because if not, I > > have no idea what you're looking for... > > > > But would that do? > > df <- data.frame(A=c(1,2,NA,NA),B=c(1,NA,NA,4)) > > apply(df,1, FUN=function(x) length(x[is.na(x)])) > > [1] 0 1 2 1 > > > > There might be better ways to do it, but it works > > HTH, > > Ivan > > > > Le 1/17/2011 11:01, Johannes Graumann a écrit : > >> Hi, > >> > >> What is an efficient way to take this DF > >> > >> data.frame(A=c(1,2,NA,NA),B=c(1,NA,NA,4)) > >> > >> and get > >> c(NA,"TWO","BOTH","ONE") > >> > >> as the result, where NA corresponds to a row without "NA"s, TWO > >> indicates NA > >> in the second and ONE in the first column. > >> > >> Thanks for any pointers. > >> > >> Joh > >> > >> ______________________________________________ > >> [email protected] 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, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
______________________________________________ [email protected] 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, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
