On 11/8/2007 2:27 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>>
>>> and there's always sprintf() for those moments when you
>>> want neat formatting.
>>
>> That's good when you want good control over the formatting, but it
>> doesn't tend to be all that readable, with the variables all listed
>> at the end, instead of in between the bits of string.
>>
> As the old saying goes, you can eat the cake and have it:
>
> x <- rnorm(1)
> cat("x is close to ", sprintf("%.1lf", x), " and closer to ",
> sprintf("%.10lf", x), "\n", sep = "")
>
> :-)
Yes, but that doesn't address my first objection to cat(), which you cut
out:
>> Nothing wrong when using cat(), but we sometimes need to compute strings
>> when we aren't using cat().
>
> I am using R as a generic programming language for doing
> jobs in Windows that I can't do using DOS batch - things
> like taking a text in Latin-1 and removing the accented
> characters, or looping through a directory and renaming
> files with weird names, or creating a .wpl file with the mp3s.
I didn't claim that this would allow R to do something it can't do now,
only that it wouldn't have to be so ugly when it did it.
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.
