Skip to content
Prev 154668 / 398506 Next

Avoiding factors and levels in data frames

On 01-Sep-08 08:20:25, ONKELINX, Thierry wrote:
Can I ask for some elucidation about how the code operates here?
Apparently read.fwf() calls read.table(), and ?read.fwf refers
you to ?read.table for things like 'as.is' and 'stringsAsFactors'.

When I look at the code for read.table, I see in the paramater
list:

function (file, .... , as.is = !stringsAsFactors, ... ,
          stringsAsFactors = default.stringsAsFactors(), ... )

with *no further reference whatever* to 'stringsAsFactors' in the
body of the function. In particular, there is no test that I can
see of whether or not 'stringsAsFactors' has been set by the user
in the call.

The standard result of default.stringsAsFactors() is TRUE.

I've written a tiny test function:

  temp<-function(as.is = !stringsAsFactors,
        stringsAsFactors = default.stringsAsFactors()){
  print(c(as.is=as.is, sAF=stringsAsFactors))
  }

  temp()
# as.is   sAF 
# FALSE  TRUE 

  temp(stringsAsFactors = FALSE)
# as.is   sAF 
#  TRUE FALSE 

  temp(as.is=FALSE,stringsAsFactors = FALSE)
# as.is   sAF 
# FALSE FALSE 

So, if read.table is called with 'as.is=FALSE' (which is the default
set by read.fwf(), with any reference to 'stringsAsFactors' in the
call being part of the "..." which is passed to read.table()), then
read.table will be called with 'as.is=FALSE' regardless of whether
'stringsAsFactors=FALSE' has been set explicitly in calling read.fwf().

The only way to get 'as.is' to be TRUE would be to set it explicitly
in the call to read.fwf() (and in that case one need not bother with
'stringsAsFactors', since its only purpose seems to be to determine
the value of 'as.is'). Or, of course, to set default.stringsAsFactors
to be FALSE; but in many case people will want to have per-case
control over what happens in cases like this.

Well, that's how it seems to me, on reading the code. Is this what
Thierry really means when he says "stringsAsFactors is not set"?

If that is the case, then it seems to indicate some conflict or
inconsistency between read.fwf() and read.table() in this respect.
In any case, it strikes me as something of an undesirable tangle!

With thanks for any comments,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding at manchester.ac.uk>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 01-Sep-08                                       Time: 10:22:55
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------