Skip to content

RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA)

2 messages · Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono, Martin Maechler

#
Function 'aggregate.data.frame' in R has taken a different route. With drop=FALSE, the function is also applied to subset corresponding to combination of grouping variables that doesn't appear in the data (example 2 in https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2017-January/073678.html).

Because 'default' is used only when simplification happens, putting 'default' after 'simplify' in the argument list may be more logical. Anyway, it doesn't affect call to 'tapply' because the argument 'default' must be specified by name.

With the code using
if(missing(default)) ,
I consider the stated default value of 'default',
default = NA ,
misleading because the code doesn't use it. Also,
tapply(1:3, 1:3, as.raw)
is not the same as
tapply(1:3, 1:3, as.raw, default = NA) .
The accurate statement is the code in
if(missing(default)) ,
but it involves the local variable 'ans'.

As far as I know, the result of function 'array' in is not a classed object and the default method of? `[<-` will be used in the 'tapply' code portion.

As far as I know, the result of 'lapply' is a list without class. So, 'unlist' applied to it uses the default method and the 'unlist' result is a vector or a factor.

With the change, the result of
tapply(1:3, 1:3, factor, levels=3:1)
is of mode "character". The value is from the internal code, not from the factor levels. It is worse than before the change, where it is really the internal code, integer.
In the documentation, the description of argument 'simplify' says: "If 'TRUE' (the default), then if 'FUN' always returns a scalar, 'tapply' returns an array with the mode of the scalar."

To initialize array, a zero-length vector can also be used.

For 'xtabs', I think that it is better if the result has storage mode "integer" if 'sum' results are of storage mode "integer", as in R 3.3.2. As 'default' argument for 'tapply', 'xtabs' can use 0L, or use 0L or 0 depending on storage mode of the summed quantity.

----------------------------
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Martin Maechler
> <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
>> 
    >> > On Jan 26, 2017 07:50, "William Dunlap via R-devel"
>> <r-devel at r-project.org> > wrote:
>> 
    >> > It would be cool if the default for tapply's init.value
    >> could be > FUN(X[0]), so it would be 0 for FUN=sum or
    >> FUN=length, TRUE for > FUN=all, -Inf for FUN=max, etc.
    >> But that would take time and would > break code for which
    >> FUN did not work on length-0 objects.
    >> 
    >> > Bill Dunlap > TIBCO Software > wdunlap tibco.com
    >> 
    >> I had the same idea (after my first post), so I agree
    >> that would be nice. One could argue it would take time
    >> only if the user is too lazy to specify the value, and we
    >> could use tryCatch(FUN(X[0]), error = NA) to safeguard
    >> against those functions that fail for 0 length arg.
    >> 
    >> But I think the main reason for _not_ setting such a
    >> default is back-compatibility.  In my proposal, the new
    >> argument would not be any change by default and so all
    >> current uses of tapply() would remain unchanged.
    >> 
    >>>>>>> Henrik Bengtsson <henrik.bengtsson at gmail.com> on
    >>>>>>> Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:57:08 -0800 writes:
    >> 
    >> > On a related note, the storage mode should try to match
    >> ans[[1]] (or > unlist:ed and) when allocating 'ansmat' to
    >> avoid coercion and hence a full > copy.
    >> 
    >> Yes, related indeed; and would fall "in line" with Bill's
    >> idea.  OTOH, it could be implemented independently, by
    >> something like
    >> 
    >> if(missing(init.value)) init.value <- if(length(ans))
    >> as.vector(NA, mode=storage.mode(ans[[1]])) else NA
Thank you, Henrik.
That's a good idea to do the unlist() first, and with 'use.names=FALSE'.
I'll copy that.

On the other hand, "brutally" modifying  'init.value' (now called 'default')
even when the user has specified it is not acceptable I think.
You are right that it would be coerced anyway subsequently, but
the coercion will happen in whatever method of  `[<-` will be
appropriate.
Good S3 and S4 programmers will write such methods for their classes.

For that reason, I'm even more conservative now, only fiddle in
case of an atomic 'ans' and make use of the corresponding '['
method rather than as.vector(.) ... because that will fulfill
the following new regression test {not fulfilled in current R}:

identical(tapply(1:3, 1:3, as.raw),
	  array(as.raw(1:3), 3L, dimnames=list(1:3)))

Also, I've done a few more things -- treating if(.) . else . as a
function call, etc  and now committed as  rev 72040  to
R-devel... really wanting to get this out.

We can bet if there will be ripples in (visible) package space,
I give it relatively high chance for no ripples (and much higher
chance for problems with the more aggressive proposal..)

Thank you again, for your "thinking along" and constructive
suggestions.

Martin
#
> Function 'aggregate.data.frame' in R has taken a different route. With drop=FALSE, the function is also applied to subset corresponding to combination of grouping variables that doesn't appear in the data (example 2 in https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2017-January/073678.html).

Interesting point (I couldn't easily find 'the example 2' though).
However, aggregate.data.frame() is a considerably more
sophisticated function and one goal was to change tapply() as
little as possible for compatibility (and maintenance!) reasons .
Yes, from this point of view, you are right; I had thought about
that too; on the other hand, it belongs "closely" to the 'FUN'
and I think that's why I had decided not to change the proposal..
Exactly.. so we keep the order as is.

    > With the code using
    >    if(missing(default)) ,
    > I consider the stated default value of 'default',
    >    default = NA ,
    > misleading because the code doesn't use it. 

I know and I also had thought about it and decided to keep it 
in the spirit of "self documentation" because  "in spirit", the
default still *is* NA.

    > Also,
    >  tapply(1:3, 1:3, as.raw)
    > is not the same as
    >  tapply(1:3, 1:3, as.raw, default = NA) .
    > The accurate statement is the code in
    > if(missing(default)) ,
    > but it involves the local variable 'ans'.

exactly.  But putting that whole expression in there would look
confusing to those using  str(tapply), args(tapply) or similar
inspection to quickly get a glimpse of the function user "interface".
That's why we typically don't do that and rather slightly cheat
with the formal default, for the above "didactical" purposes.

If you are puristic about this, then missing() should almost never
be used when the function argument has a formal default.

I don't have a too strong opinion here, and we do have quite a
few other cases, where the formal default argument is not always
used because of   if(missing(.))  clauses.

I think I could be convinced to drop the '= NA' from the formal
argument list..


    > As far as I know, the result of function 'array' in is not a classed object and the default method of? `[<-` will be used in the 'tapply' code portion.

    > As far as I know, the result of 'lapply' is a list without class. So, 'unlist' applied to it uses the default method and the 'unlist' result is a vector or a factor.

You may be right here
  ((or not:  If a package author makes array() into an S3 generic and defines
    S3method(array, *) and she or another make tapply() into a
    generic with methods,  are we really sure that this code
    would not be used ??))

still, the as.raw example did not easily work without a warning
when using as.vector() .. or similar.

    > With the change, the result of

    > tapply(1:3, 1:3, factor, levels=3:1)

    > is of mode "character". The value is from the internal code, not from the factor levels. It is worse than before the change, where it is really the internal code, integer.

I agree that this change is not desirable.
One could argue that it was quite a "lucky coincidence" that the previous
code returned the internal integer codes though..


    > In the documentation, the description of argument 'simplify' says: "If 'TRUE' (the default), then if 'FUN' always returns a scalar, 'tapply' returns an array with the mode of the scalar."


    > To initialize array, a zero-length vector can also be used.

yes, of course; but my  ans[0L][1L]  had the purpose to get the
correct mode specific version of NA .. which works for raw (by
getting '00' because "raw" has *no* NA!).

So it seems I need an additional   !is.factor(ans)  there ...
a bit ugly.


---------
you are right, that *is* preferable
indeed, that will be an improvement there!