Hello David
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:14 PM, David Winsemius <dwinsem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> x <- data.frame(a = as.Date('2000-01-01'), b=as.Date('2001-01-01'))
>> x$d <- x$a -x$b
>> require(mefa)
>> rep(x, 2)
> a b d
> 1 2000-01-01 2001-01-01 -366
> 2 2000-01-01 2001-01-01 -366
>> str(rep(x,2))
> 'data.frame': 2 obs. of 3 variables:
> $ a: Date, format: ...
> $ b: Date, format: ...
> $ d: num -366 -366 # notice that a difftime object has lost its class
>
Nice catch. Thanks for pointing it out.
> # Whereas using the [rep(. , .) , ] approach does preserve the difftime
> class.
>> str(x[rep(1,2) , ])
> 'data.frame': 2 obs. of 3 variables:
> $ a: Date, format: ...
> $ b: Date, format: ...
> $ d:Class 'difftime' atomic [1:2] -366 -366 # leap year
> .. ..- attr(*, "units")= chr "days"
>
The above is nice. I wouldn't have thought of it.
> Since that works out of the box with fewer potential side-effects, I am not
> sure a new method is needed.
>
Your solution still seems more like an obscure side-effect of
subsetting than an intuitive feature, in the sense that before trying
it out the average user would probably first turn to base::rep() when
in need to replicate a df, and then (perhaps) to
mefa:::rep.data.frame() (with all the associated confusion and
pitfalls). I would tend to believe that if there is a clean R-ish way
to implement a base::rep.data.frame() it could still be useful.
Best regards
Liviu
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
