On 2/11/2007 8:57 PM, Mark W Kimpel wrote: > 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?"
Basically the reason I liked Gabor's solution is related to what Haris said. I wouldn't worry so much about potential damage, but the possibility of getting something quite different from what you expect is larger with my solution. Gabor's selected a particular component from a list, which is really what you wanted to do. I suspect the difference in computational efficiency between the two wouldn't really be measurable, but Gabor's would be a little better. The main benefit of it is clarity. Duncan Murdoch > > 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. >> > ______________________________________________ [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.
