On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Duncan Murdoch
<murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/08/2012 2:16 PM, Liviu Andronic wrote:
I came up with a modified version of the above:
print_noattr <- function(x, keep.some=T, ...){
if(keep.some) xa <- attributes(x)[c('names', 'row.names', 'class')]
attributes(x) <- NULL
if(keep.some) attributes(x) <- xa
print(x)
}
However this still feels like a hack, and the function should be
modified if the object in question contains some other crucial
attributes.
I think it's reasonable to say it feels like a hack, because it is. x should
have had a class and a print method for that class in the first place, if
the attributes are not something that users should see. If they are things
you should see, then suppressing them is a bad idea.
I think I like most the approach below.
print2 <- function(x, rm.attr=NULL, ...){
if(!is.null(rm.attr)) attributes(x)[rm.attr] <- NULL
print(x, ...)
}
x <- dlply(iris, .(Species), function(x) describe(x[, 'Sepal.Length']))
attributes(x)
$split_type
[1] "data.frame"
$split_labels
Species
1 setosa
2 versicolor
3 virginica
$names
[1] "setosa" "versicolor" "virginica"
print2(x, c("split_type", "split_labels"))
$setosa
x[, "Sepal.Length"]
n missing unique Mean .05 .10 .25 .50 .75
50 0 15 5.006 4.40 4.59 4.80 5.00 5.20
.90 .95
5.41 5.61
4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.7 5.8
Frequency 1 3 1 4 2 5 4 8 8 3 1 5 2 2 1
% 2 6 2 8 4 10 8 16 16 6 2 10 4 4 2
$versicolor
x[, "Sepal.Length"]
n missing unique Mean .05 .10 .25 .50 .75
50 0 21 5.936 5.045 5.380 5.600 5.900 6.300
.90 .95
6.700 6.755
lowest : 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.4, highest: 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.0
$virginica
x[, "Sepal.Length"]
n missing unique Mean .05 .10 .25 .50 .75
50 0 21 6.588 5.745 5.800 6.225 6.500 6.900
.90 .95
7.610 7.700
lowest : 4.9 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9, highest: 7.3 7.4 7.6 7.7 7.9
This way the user has complete control over what attributes are
displayed or not. Wouldn't it be reasonable to have such an argument
in print()?