Duncan, Both yours and Gabor's methods were far superior to mine. I am curious why you like Gabor's better than yours. From the perspective of someone who uses R regularly but has only read about C, yours seems more "R-like". Would Gabor's be more computationally efficient if the loop was big enough?
I ask this because it made me ask myself, "are the C-like functions of R 'better' (computationally) than the more R-like ones?" Am I making sense? Mark Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On 2/11/2007 4:17 PM, Robert McFadden wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Duncan Murdoch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> eval(parse(text=my.data)) >>> >> I would like to thank everybody very much for help, but especially for >> Duncan - it works wonderful. > > You're welcome, but I have to say I like Gabor's solution better than > mine, assuming that M3 is fixed. > > Duncan Murdoch > > ______________________________________________ > [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. > -- Mark W. Kimpel MD Neuroinformatics Department of Psychiatry Indiana University School of Medicine ______________________________________________ [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.
