Re: [R] make methods work in lapply - remove lapply's environment
This is a side-effect of lapply being in the base namespace and not
evaluating its arguments, as explained on its help page which also points
out that using a wrapper is sometimes needed. It also points out that
code has been written that relies on the current behaviour.
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Tim Hesterberg wrote:
I've defined my own version of summary.default,
that gives a better summary for highly skewed vectors.
If I call
summary(x)
the method is used.
If I call
summary(data.frame(x))
the method is not used.
I've traced this to lapply; this uses the new method:
lapply(list(x), function(x) summary(x))
and this does not:
lapply(list(x), summary)
If I make a copy of lapply, WITHOUT the environment,
then the method is used.
lapply - function (X, FUN, ...) {
FUN - match.fun(FUN)
if (!is.vector(X) || is.object(X))
X - as.list(X)
.Internal(lapply(X, FUN))
}
I'm curious to hear reactions to this.
There is a March 2006 thread
object size vs. file size
in which Duncan Murdoch wrote:
Functions in R consist of 3 parts: the formals, the body, and the
environment. You can't remove any part, but you can change it.
That is exactly what I want to do, remove the environment, so that
when I define a better version of some function that the better
version is used.
Here's a function to automate the process:
copyFunction - function(Name){
# Copy a function, without its environment.
# Name should be quoted
# Return the copy
file - tempfile()
on.exit(unlink(file))
dput(get(Name), file = file)
f - source(file)$value
f
}
lapply - copyFunction(lapply)
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
__
R-help@r-project.org 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.
--
Brian D. Ripley, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UKFax: +44 1865 272595
__
R-help@r-project.org 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.
[R] make methods work in lapply - remove lapply's environment
I've defined my own version of summary.default,
that gives a better summary for highly skewed vectors.
If I call
summary(x)
the method is used.
If I call
summary(data.frame(x))
the method is not used.
I've traced this to lapply; this uses the new method:
lapply(list(x), function(x) summary(x))
and this does not:
lapply(list(x), summary)
If I make a copy of lapply, WITHOUT the environment,
then the method is used.
lapply - function (X, FUN, ...) {
FUN - match.fun(FUN)
if (!is.vector(X) || is.object(X))
X - as.list(X)
.Internal(lapply(X, FUN))
}
I'm curious to hear reactions to this.
There is a March 2006 thread
object size vs. file size
in which Duncan Murdoch wrote:
Functions in R consist of 3 parts: the formals, the body, and the
environment. You can't remove any part, but you can change it.
That is exactly what I want to do, remove the environment, so that
when I define a better version of some function that the better
version is used.
Here's a function to automate the process:
copyFunction - function(Name){
# Copy a function, without its environment.
# Name should be quoted
# Return the copy
file - tempfile()
on.exit(unlink(file))
dput(get(Name), file = file)
f - source(file)$value
f
}
lapply - copyFunction(lapply)
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
__
R-help@r-project.org 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.
Re: [R] make methods work in lapply - remove lapply's environment
On 08/09/2008 9:37 PM, Tim Hesterberg wrote:
I've defined my own version of summary.default,
that gives a better summary for highly skewed vectors.
If I call
summary(x)
the method is used.
If I call
summary(data.frame(x))
the method is not used.
I've traced this to lapply; this uses the new method:
lapply(list(x), function(x) summary(x))
and this does not:
lapply(list(x), summary)
If I make a copy of lapply, WITHOUT the environment,
then the method is used.
lapply - function (X, FUN, ...) {
FUN - match.fun(FUN)
if (!is.vector(X) || is.object(X))
X - as.list(X)
.Internal(lapply(X, FUN))
}
I'm curious to hear reactions to this.
There is a March 2006 thread
object size vs. file size
in which Duncan Murdoch wrote:
Functions in R consist of 3 parts: the formals, the body, and the
environment. You can't remove any part, but you can change it.
That is exactly what I want to do, remove the environment, so that
when I define a better version of some function that the better
version is used.
But that's not removing the environment, that's changing it. Your
function has globalenv() as its environment.
Here's a function to automate the process:
copyFunction - function(Name){
# Copy a function, without its environment.
# Name should be quoted
# Return the copy
file - tempfile()
on.exit(unlink(file))
dput(get(Name), file = file)
f - source(file)$value
f
}
lapply - copyFunction(lapply)
A shorter version is
copyFunction - function(fn){
environment(fn) - globalenv()
fn
}
(which doesn't require quoting the function name).
But getting back to your original question: the real problem is with S3
method dispatch and its interaction with lapply. In the bad case,
lapply calls the generic, which calls the dataframe method, which calls
methods (probably via the generic again, but I didn't look) for each of
the columns. This is an ambiguous case: should the dataframe method
act the way its author expected, and call the standard method, or should
it follow the search order you want?
I'd tend to think authors of functions should be able to depend on their
behaviour not changing based on what's happening in the global
environment. That's not an absolute rule: you should be able to define
a new class and a method for it and have things work, but I don't think
the fact that you have a summary.default should affect functions in
namespaces that were written for the standard summary.default.
Duncan Murdoch
__
R-help@r-project.org 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.
