Is a list an atomic object? (or is there an issue with the help page of ?tapply ?)
Did you ever receive a reply to this? Note that for your example:
tapply(l,index,sum)
Error in FUN(X[[i]], ...) : invalid 'type' (list) of argument A list is definitely not atomic (is.recursive(l) ). So it looks like a "quirk" that FUN = unlist doesn't raise an error. Cheers, Bert Bert Gunter "The trouble with having an open mind is that people keep coming along and sticking things into it." -- Opus (aka Berkeley Breathed in his "Bloom County" comic strip )
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Tal Galili <tal.galili at gmail.com> wrote:
In the help page of ?tapply it says that the first argument (X) is "an atomic object, typically a vector." However, tapply seems to be able to handle list objects. For example: ################### l <- as.list(1:10) is.atomic(l) # FALSE index <- c(rep(1,5),rep(2,5)) tapply(l,index,unlist)
tapply(l,index,unlist)
$`1`
[1] 1 2 3 4 5
$`2`
[1] 6 7 8 9 10
###################
Hence, does it mean a list an atomic object? (which I thought it wasn't) or
is the help for tapply needs updating?
(or some third option I'm missing?)
Thanks.
----------------Contact
Details:-------------------------------------------------------
Contact me: Tal.Galili at gmail.com |
Read me: www.talgalili.com (Hebrew) | www.biostatistics.co.il (Hebrew) |
www.r-statistics.com (English)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see 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.