> Steve Martin
> on Mon, 18 Dec 2023 07:56:46 -0500 writes:
> Does mFUN() really need to be a function of x and the NA values of x? I
> can't think of a case where it would be used on anything but the non-NA
> values of x.
> I think it would be easier to specify a dif
Hello all,
Following up on this old thread as I have recently observed, rather a
bad practice (maintaining order of installation for R packages rather
than relying on R for that), for solving a problem that R branch
tools4pkgs (mentioned in this email) addresses very well.
More details can be foun
Hi Hilmar and Ivan,
I have used your code examples to write a blog post about this topic,
which has figures that show the asymptotic time complexity of the
various approaches,
https://tdhock.github.io/blog/2023/df-partial-match/
The asymptotic complexity of partial matching appears to be quadratic
Hi Hilmar and Ivan,
I have used your code examples to write a blog post about this topic,
which has figures that show the asymptotic time complexity of the
various approaches,
https://tdhock.github.io/blog/2023/df-partial-match/
The asymptotic complexity of partial matching appears to be quadratic
Thanks for sharing, Martin. You're right that the interface for mFUN
should be more general than I initially thought.*
Perhaps you have other cases/examples where the ina argument is
useful, in which case ignore me, but your example with the robust mFUN
doesn't use the ina argument. What about hav
