On Jan 5, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Kevin Ushey wrote:
Hey guys,
I noticed something curious in the lapply call. I'll copy+paste the
function call here because it's short enough:
lapply <- function (X, FUN, ...)
{
FUN <- match.fun(FUN)
if (!is.vector(X) || is.object(X))
X <- as.list(X)
.Internal(lapply(X, FUN))
}
Notice that lapply coerces X to a list if the !is.vector ||
is.object(X)
check passes.
Curiously, data.frames fail the test (is.vector(data.frame()) returns
FALSE); but it seems that coercion of a data.frame
to a list would be unnecessary for the *apply family of functions.
Is there a reason why we must coerce data.frames to list for these
functions? I thought data.frames were essentially just 'structured
lists'?
I ask because it is generally quite slow coercing a (large)
data.frame to a
list, and it seems like this could be avoided for data.frames.
Is this related to this SO question that uses the microbenchmark
function to illustrate the costs of the (possibly) superfluous coercion?
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14169818/why-is-sapply-relatively-slow-when-querying-attributes-on-variables-in-a-data-fr
--
David Winsemius, MD
Alameda, CA, USA
______________________________________________
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.
