Robert Castelo wrote:
> hi,
>
> thanks to all the replies, i think the discussion can be followed
> throughout this message.
>
>
>> You are returning an result in a function that returns void: the compiler
>> will complain at you.
>>
>
> apologies, indeed it should have been
>
> SEXP f(SEXP list, SEXP element);
>
>
>> If you study the R Internals manual you will see that there is no space on
>> the original VECSXP for another element, so you do *need* to create a new
>> VECSXP. Note that creating a new list does not mean necessarily copying
>> the elements, but you do need to think about the NAMED bits.
>>
>
> in this list i need not names associated to each element, i guess that
> should release me from thinking about the NAMED bits you refer to (?).
>
>
No! This is very important: The same R object may be known under
multiple names and this is what NAMED records (well, it tries). When
this is the case, it is not safe to modify it destructively. E.g.
x <- rnorm(100)
y <- x # at this point y and x refer to the SAME object
y[1] <- 0 # NOW we have to duplicate y or the subassignment will change x
Notice that this appears in disguised forms:
g <- function(y) {
y[1] <- 0 # MAY require duplication
mean(y)
}
x <- rnorm(100)
g(x) # duplication needed
g(rnorm(100)) # duplication not needed
Don't try anything involving destructive modification of objects before
you have understood this!
--
O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Øster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B
c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K
(*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX: (+45) 35327907
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
