Skip to content

Force evaluation of a symbol when a function is created

11 messages · Schoenfeld, David Alan,Ph.D.,Biostatistics, William Dunlap, Bert Gunter +3 more

#
You could use local(), as in
   > F <- local({
   +        Y <- 3
   +        function(x) x * Y
   +    })
   >    F(7)
   [1] 21
   > Y <- 19
   > F(5)
  [1] 15

Look into 'environments' for more.

Bill Dunlap
Spotfire, TIBCO Software
wdunlap tibco.com
#
Thanks to both: Cute question, clever, informative answer.

However, Bill, I don't think you **quite** answered him, although the
modification needed is completely trivial. Of course, I could never
have figured it out without your response.

Anyway, I interpret the question as asking for the function definition
to _implicitly_ pick up the value of Y at the time the function is
defined, rather than explicitly assigning it in local(). The following
are two essentially identical approaches: I prefer the second, because
it's more transparent to me, but that's just a matter of taste.

Y <- 3
F <-local({y <- Y;function(x)x*y})
G <- evalq(function(x)x*y,env=list(y=Y))

Yielding:
[1] 15
[1] 15
[1] 15
[1] 15
[1] 10
[1] 10

Cheers,
Bert
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:24 PM, William Dunlap <wdunlap at tibco.com> wrote:
#
Hi,
Try this:

?F<-function(x,type="local"){Y=3
?x*Y}
F(3)
#[1] 9
?Y<-4
?F(3)
#[1] 9
?Y<-5
?F(3)
#[1] 9


A.K.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Schoenfeld, David Alan,Ph.D.,Biostatistics" <DSCHOENFELD at partners.org>
To: "'r-help at r-project.org'" <r-help at r-project.org>
Cc: 
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2012 5:07 PM
Subject: [R] Force evaluation of a symbol  when a function is created


I am porting a program in matlab to R,
The problem is that Matlab has a feature where symbols that aren't arguments are evaluated immediately.
That is:
Y=3
F=@(x) x*Y

Will yield a function such that F(2)=6.
If later say. Y=4 then F(2) will still equal 6.

R on the other hand has lazy evaluation.
F<-function(x){x*Y}
Will do the following
Y=3
F(2)=6
Y=4
F(2)=8.
Does anyone know of away to defeat lazy evaluation in R so that I can easily simulate the Matlab behavior.? I know that I can live without this in ordinary programming but it would make my port much easier.

Thanks.




The information in this e-mail is intended only for the ...{{dropped:14}}

______________________________________________
R-help at 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.
#
Both of those approaches require the function to be created
at the same time that the environment containing some of its
bindings is created.  You can also take an existing function and
assign a new environment to it.  E.g.,

  > f <- function(x) y * x
  > ys <- c(2,3,5,7,11)
  > fs <- lapply(ys, function(y) {
                          env <- new.env(parent=baseenv());
                          env[["y"]] <- y ;
                          environment(f) <- env ; f })
  > # fs is a list of functions, all identical except for their environments, which contain 'y'.
  > fs[[2]]
  function (x) 
  y * x
  <environment: 0x0000000005df1c38>
  > fs[[2]](10)
  [1] 30
  > fs[[3]]
  function (x) 
  y * x
  <environment: 0x0000000005def8c0>
  > fs[[3]](10)
  [1] 50

Bill Dunlap
Spotfire, TIBCO Software
wdunlap tibco.com
#
Thank you both, this was very helpful.  I need to study environments more. Do either of you know a good source?
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bert Gunter [mailto:gunter.berton at gene.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 6:03 PM
To: William Dunlap
Cc: Schoenfeld, David Alan,Ph.D.,Biostatistics; r-help at r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R] Force evaluation of a symbol when a function is created

Thanks to both: Cute question, clever, informative answer.

However, Bill, I don't think you **quite** answered him, although the
modification needed is completely trivial. Of course, I could never
have figured it out without your response.

Anyway, I interpret the question as asking for the function definition
to _implicitly_ pick up the value of Y at the time the function is
defined, rather than explicitly assigning it in local(). The following
are two essentially identical approaches: I prefer the second, because
it's more transparent to me, but that's just a matter of taste.

Y <- 3
F <-local({y <- Y;function(x)x*y})
G <- evalq(function(x)x*y,env=list(y=Y))

Yielding:
[1] 15
[1] 15
[1] 15
[1] 15
[1] 10
[1] 10

Cheers,
Bert
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:24 PM, William Dunlap <wdunlap at tibco.com> wrote:

  
    
#
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Schoenfeld, David
Alan,Ph.D.,Biostatistics <DSCHOENFELD at partners.org> wrote:
Disclaimer: I really have no idea what I'm talking about.

They are a somewhat subtle, but exceptionally powerful concept: see,
inter alia,

cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Fox-Companion/appendix-scope.pdf
http://www.lemnica.com/esotericR/Introducing-Closures/

If you know a little bit of C, it will go a long way in understanding
environments in R. You'll want to (eventually) start to associate R
names with C pointers and environments with symbol tables (hence the
fact the printed environment is just a memory address) , but that's
perhaps a little bit down the road. Environments are different in
their fundamental behavior because of this though: they're the best
way to get pass by reference in R.

Best,
Michael
#
Here's one more way.  It seems to me this is the most R-like way to do 
what you want:

   multiply_by_Y <- function(Y) {
     force(Y)
     function(x) x*Y
   }

   F <- multiply_by_Y(3)

The "force" call forces Y to be evaluated at that point, so its value is 
fixed from that point forward.

Duncan Murdoch
On 12-08-06 5:07 PM, Schoenfeld, David Alan,Ph.D.,Biostatistics wrote:
#
Duncan, et.al:

Many thanks: let the closure do the work automatically rather than
manually manipulating it.

However, in the spirit of the OP's original request, I believe the
call would be:
But then there is no need for force(), is there?
[1] 10
[1] 10
[1] 15

That is, one simply relies on lexical scoping/closures to "retain" the
value of  Y used as a free variable in  function(x)x*Y when it is
defined. No need to explicitly force() it. If wrong, I would be
grateful for correction. This appears to me to duplicate the Matlab
behavior rather closely.


-- Bert
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote:

  
    
#
On 12-08-07 10:46 AM, Bert Gunter wrote:
You still need force:

fy <- function(Y)function(x) x*Y
Y <- 2
F <- fy(Y)
Y <- 3
F(5)

This will print 15, because F only contains a promise to evaluate Y, it 
hasn't been evaluated until the very last line, and by that time Y has 
been changed to 3.

If you are going to construct functions in functions, and their results 
depend on the arguments to the constructor, then it's almost always a 
good idea to force the arguments.  Sometimes it isn't necessary (the 
value will be forced implicitly), and in some rare circumstances you 
might want to capture the promise instead of its value, but it's 
generally a good idea.  It is a fairly cheap operation.

Duncan Murdoch
#
Thanks Duncan. That clarifies it!

-- Bert

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Duncan Murdoch
<murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: