I am trying to write a very basic IF statement in R and am stuck. I thought I'd find someone with the same problem, but I cant. Im sorry if this has been solved before.
I want to check if a variable/object has been assigned, IF TRUE I want to execute a function that is part of a R-package. First I wrote
FileAssignment <- function(x){
if(exists("x")==TRUE){
print("yes!")
x <- parse.vdjtools(x)
} else { print("Nope!")}
}
I assign a filename as x
FILENAME <- "FILENAME.txt"
I run the function
FileAssignment(FILENAME)
I use print("yes!") and print("Nope!") to check if the IF-Statement works, and it does. However, the parse.vdjtools(x) part is not assigned. Now I tested the same IF-statement outside of the function:
if(exists("FILENAME1")==TRUE){
FILENAME1 <- parse.vdjtools(FILENAME1)
}
This works. I read here that it might be because the function uses {} and the if-statement does too. So I should remove the brackets from the if-statement.
FileAssignment <- function(x){
if(exists("x")==TRUE)
x <- parse.vdjtools(x)
else { print("Nope!")
}
Did not work either.
I thought it might be related to the specific parse.vdjtools(x) function, so I just tried assigning a normal value to x with x <- 20. Also did not work inside the function, however, it does outside.
I dont really know what you are trying to acheive, but I wpuld say that the use of exists in this context is wrong. There is no way that the x cannot exist inside the function. See this example
# All this does is report if x exists
f <- function(x){
if(exists("x"))
cat("Found x!", fill = TRUE)
}
f()
f("a")
f(iris)
# All will be found!
Investigate file.exists instead? This is vectorised, so a vector of files can be investigated at the same time.
The question that you are asking is less trivial than you seem to believe. There are two points that should be addressed to obtain the desired behavior, and especially the first one is somewhat tricky:
As pointed out by #NJBurgo and #KonradRudolph the variable x will always exist within the function since it is an argument of the function. In your case the function exists() should therefore not check whether the variable x is defined. Instead, it should be used to verify whether a variable with a name corresponding to the character string stored in x exists.
This is achieved by using a combination of deparse() and
substitute():
if (exists(deparse(substitute(x)))) { …
Since x is defined only within the scope of the function, the superassignment operator <<- would be required to make a value assigned to x visible outside the function, as suggested by #thothai. However, functions should not have such side effects. Problems with this kind of programming include possible conflicts with another variable named x that could be defined in a different context outside the function body, as well as a lack of clarity concerning the operations performed by the function.
A better way is to return the value instead of assigning it to a variable.
Combining these two aspects, the function could be rewritten like this:
FileAssignment <- function(x){
if (exists(deparse(substitute(x)))) {
print("yes!")
return(parse.vdjtools(x))
} else {
print("Nope!")
return(NULL)}
}
In this version of the function, the scope of x is limited to the function body and the function has no side effects. The return value of FileAssignment(a) is either parse.vdjtools(a) or NULL, depending on whether a exists or not.
Outside the function, this value can be assigned to x with
x <- FileAssignment(a)
Related
So, I'm brushing up on how to work with data frames in R and I came across this little bit of code from https://cloud.r-project.org/web/packages/data.table/vignettes/datatable-intro.html:
input <- if (file.exists("flights14.csv")) {
"flights14.csv"
} else {
"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Rdatatable/data.table/master/vignettes/flights14.csv"
}
Apparently, this assigns the strings (character vectors?) in the if and else statements to input based on the conditional. How is this working? It seems like magic. I am hoping to find somewhere in the official R documentation that explains this.
From other languages I would have just done:
if (file.exists("flights14.csv")) {
input <- "flights14.csv"
} else {
input <- "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Rdatatable/data.table/master/vignettes/flights14.csv"
}
or in R there is ifelse which also seems designed to do exactly this, but somehow that first example also works. I can memorize that this works but I'm wondering if I'm missing the opportunity to understand the bigger picture about how R works.
From the documentation on the ?Control help page under "Value"
if returns the value of the expression evaluated, or NULL invisibly if none was (which may happen if there is no else).
So the if statement is kind of like a function that returns a value. The value that's returned is the result of either evaulating the if or the then block. When you have a block in R (code between {}), the brackets are also like a function that just return the value of the last expression evaluated in the block. And a string literal is a valid expression that returns itself
So these are the same
x <- "hello"
x <- {"hello"}
x <- {"dropped"; "hello"}
x <- if(TRUE) {"hello"}
x <- if(TRUE) {"dropped"; "hello"}
x <- if(TRUE) {"hello"} else {"dropped"}
And you only really need blocks {} with if/else statements when you have more than one expression to run or when spanning multiple lines. So you could also do
x <- if(TRUE) "hello" else "dropped"
x <- if(FALSE) "dropped" else "hello"
These all store "hello" in x
You are not really missing anything about the "big picture" in R. The R if function is atypical compared both to other languages as well as to R's typical behavior. Unlike most functions in R which do require assignment of their output to a "symbol", i.e a proper R name, if allows assignments that occur within its consequent or alternative code blocks to occur within the global environment. Most functions would return only the final evaluation, while anything else that occurred inside the function body would be garbage collected.
The other common atypical function is for. R for-loops only
retain these interior assignments and always return NULL. The R Language Definition calls these atypical R functions "control structures". See section 3.3. On my machine (and I suspect most Linux boxes) that document is installed at: http://127.0.0.1:10731/help/doc/manual/R-lang.html#Control-structures. If you are on another OS then there is probably a pulldown Help menu in your IDE that will have a pointer to it. Thew help document calls them "control flow constructs" and the help page is at ?Control. Note that it is necessary to quote these terms when you wnat to access that help page using one of those names since they are "reserved words". So you would need ?'if' rather than typing ?if. The other reserved words are described in the ?Reserved page.
?Control
?'if' ; ?'for'
?Reserved
# When you just type:
?if # and hit <return>
# you will see a "+"-sign which indicateds an incomplete expression.
# you nthen need to hit <escape> to get back to a regular R interaction.
In R, functions don't need explicit return. If not specified the last line of the function is automatically returned. Consider this example :
a <- 5
b <- 1
result <- if(a == 5) {
a <- a + 1
b <- b + 1
a
} else {b}
result
#[1] 6
The last line in if block was saved in result. Similarly, in your case the string values are "returned" implicitly.
The following simple example will help me address a problem in my program implementation.
fun2<-function(j)
{
x<-rnorm(10)
y<-runif(10)
Sum<-sum(x,y)
Prod<-prod(x,y)
return(Sum)
}
j=1:10
Try<-lapply(j,fun2)
#
I want to store "Prod" at each iteration so I can access it after running the function fun2. I tried using assign() to create space assign("Prod",numeric(10),pos=1)
and then assigning Prod at j-th iteration to Prod[j] but it does not work.
#
Any idea how this can be done?
Thank you
You can add anything you like in the return() command. You could return a list return(list(Sum,Prod)) or a data frame return(data.frame("In"=j,"Sum"=Sum,"Prod"=Prod))
I would then convert that list of data.frames into a single data.frame
Try2 <- do.call(rbind,Try)
Maybe re-think the problem in a more vectorized way, taking advantage of the implied symmetry to represent intermediate values as a matrix and operating on that
ni = 10; nj = 20
x = matrix(rnorm(ni * nj), ni)
y = matrix(runif(ni * nj), ni)
sums = colSums(x + y)
prods = apply(x * y, 2, prod)
Thinking about the vectorized version is as applicable to whatever your 'real' problem is as it is to the sum / prod example; in practice and when thinking in terms of vectors fails I've never used the environment or concatenation approaches in other answers, but rather the simple solution of returning a list or vector.
I have done this before, and it works. Good for a quick fix, but its kind of sloppy. The <<- operator assigns outside the function to the global environment.
fun2<-function(j){
x<-rnorm(10)
y<-runif(10)
Sum<-sum(x,y)
Prod[j]<<-prod(x,y)
}
j=1:10
Prod <- numeric(length(j))
Try<-lapply(j,fun2)
Prod
thelatemail and JeremyS's solutions are probably what you want. Using lists is the normal way to pass back a bunch of different data items and I would encourage you to use it. Quoted here so no one thinks I'm advocating the direct option.
return(list(Sum,Prod))
Having said that, suppose that you really don't want to pass them back, you could also put them directly in the parent environment from within the function using either assign or the superassignment operator. This practice can be looked down on by functional programming purists, but it does work. This is basically what you were originally trying to do.
Here's the superassignment version
fun2<-function(j)
{
x<-rnorm(10)
y<-runif(10)
Sum<-sum(x,y)
Prod[j] <<- prod(x,y)
return(Sum)
}
j=1:10
Prod <- numeric(10)
Try<-lapply(j,fun2)
Note that the superassignment searches back for the first environment in which the variable exists and modifies it there. It's not appropriate for creating new variables above where you are.
And an example version using the environment directly
fun2<-function(j,env)
{
x<-rnorm(10)
y<-runif(10)
Sum<-sum(x,y)
env$Prod[j] <- prod(x,y)
return(Sum)
}
j=1:10
Prod <- numeric(10)
Try<-lapply(j,fun2,env=parent.frame())
Notice that if you had called parent.frame() from within the function you would need to go back two frames because lapply() creates its own. This approach has the advantage that you could pass it any environment you want instead of parent.frame() and the value would be modified there. This is the seldom-used R implementation of writeable passing by reference. It's safer than superassignment because you know where the variable is that is being modified.
This question already has answers here:
Global and local variables in R
(3 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I'm pretty new to R, but coming from Scheme—which is also lexically scoped and has closures—I would expect being able to mutate outer variables in a closure.
E.g., in
foo <- function() {
s <- 100
add <- function() {
s <- s + 1
}
add()
s
}
cat(foo(), "\n") # prints 100 and not 101
I would expect foo() to return 101, but it actually returns 100:
$ Rscript foo.R
100
I know that Python has the global keyword to declare scope of variables (doesn't work with this example, though). Does R need something similar?
What am I doing wrong?
Update
Ah, is the problem that in add I am creating a new, local variable s that shadows the outer s? If so, how can I mutate s without creating a local variable?
Use the <<- operator for assignment in the add() function.
From ?"<<-":
The operators <<- and ->> are normally only used in functions, and cause a search to made through parent environments for an existing definition of the variable being assigned. If such a variable is found (and its binding is not locked) then its value is redefined, otherwise assignment takes place in the global environment. Note that their semantics differ from that in the S language, but are useful in conjunction with the scoping rules of R. See ‘The R Language Definition’ manual for further details and examples.
You can also use assign and define the scope precisely using the envir argument, works the same way as <<- in your add function in this case but makes your intention a little more clear:
foo <- function() {
s <- 100
add <- function() {
assign("s", s + 1, envir = parent.frame())
}
add()
s
}
cat(foo(), "\n")
Of course the better way for this kind of thing in R is to have your function return the variable (or variables) it modifies and explicitly reassigning them to the original variable:
foo <- function() {
s <- 100
add <- function(x) x + 1
s <- add(s)
s
}
cat(foo(), "\n")
Here is one more approach that can be a little safer than the assign or <<- approaches:
foo <- function() {
e <- environment()
s <- 100
add <- function() {
e$s <- e$s + 1
}
add()
s
}
foo()
The <<- assignment can cause problems if you accidentally misspell your variable name, it will still do something, but it will not be what you are expecting and can be hard to find the source of the problem. The assign approach can be tricky if you then want to move your add function to inside another function, or call it from another function. The best approach overall is to not have the functions modify variables outside their own scope and have the function return anything that is important. But when that is not possible, the above method uses lexical scoping to access the environment e, then assigns into the environment so it will always assign specifically into that function, never above or below.
I had changed the for loop into sapply function ,but failed .
I want to know why ?
list.files("c:/",pattern="mp3$",recursive=TRUE,full.names=TRUE)->z
c()->w
left<-basename(z)
for (i in 1:length(z)){
if (is.element(basename(z[i]),left))
{
append(w,values=z[i])->w;
setdiff(left,basename(z[i]))->left
}}
print(w)
list.files("c:/",pattern="mp3$",recursive=TRUE,full.names=TRUE)->z
c()->w
left<-basename(z)
sapply(z,function(y){
if (is.element(basename(y),left))
{ append(w,values=y)->w;
setdiff(left,basename(y))->left
}})
print(w)
my rule of selecting music is that if the basename(music) is the same ,then save only one full.name of music ,so unique can not be used directly.there are two concepts full.name and basename in file path which can confuse people here.
The problem you have here is that you want your function to have two side-effects. By side-effect, I mean modify objects that are outside its scope:w and left.
Curently, w and left are only modified within the function's scope, then they are eventually lost as the function call ends.
Instead, you want to modify w and left outside the function's environment. For that you can use <<- instead of <-:
sapply(z, function(y) {
if (is.element(basename(y),left)) {
w <<- append(w, values = y)
left <<- setdiff(left, basename(y))
}
})
Note that I have been saying "you want", "you can", but this is not what "you should" do. Functions with side-effects are really considered bad programming. Try reading about it.
Also, it is good to reserve the *apply tools to functions that can run their inputs independently. Here instead, you have an algorithm where the outcome of an iteration depends on the outcome of the previous ones. These are cases where you're better off using a for loop, unless you can rethink the algorithm in a framework that better suits *apply or can make use of functions that can handle such dependent situations: filter, unique, rle, etc.
For example, using unique, your code can be rewritten as:
base.names <- basename(z)
left <- unique(base.names)
w <- z[match(left, base.names)]
It also has the advantage that it is not building an object recursively, another no-no of your current code.
I'd like to give a params argument to a function and then attach it so that I can use a instead of params$a everytime I refer to the list element a.
run.simulation<-function(model,params){
attach(params)
#
# Use elements of params as parameters in a simulation
detach(params)
}
Is there a problem with this? If I have defined a global variable named c and have also defined an element named c of the list "params" , whose value would be used after the attach command?
Noah has already pointed out that using attach is a bad idea, even though you see it in some examples and books. There is a way around. You can use "local attach" that's called with. In Noah's dummy example, this would look like
with(params, print(a))
which will yield identical result, but is tidier.
Another possibility is:
run.simulation <- function(model, params){
# Assume params is a list of parameters from
# "params <- list(name1=value1, name2=value2, etc.)"
for (v in 1:length(params)) assign(names(params)[v], params[[v]])
# Use elements of params as parameters in a simulation
}
Easiest way to solve scope problems like this is usually to try something simple out:
a = 1
params = c()
params$a = 2
myfun <- function(params) {
attach(params)
print(a)
detach(params)
}
myfun(params)
The following object(s) are masked _by_ .GlobalEnv:
a
# [1] 1
As you can see, R is picking up the global attribute a here.
It's almost always a good idea to avoid using attach and detach wherever possible -- scope ends up being tricky to handle (incidentally, it's also best to avoid naming variables c -- R will often figure out what you're referring to, but there are so many other letters out there, why risk it?). In addition, I find code using attach/detach almost impossible to decipher.
Jean-Luc's answer helped me immensely for a case that I had a data.frame Dat instead of the list as specified in the OP:
for (v in 1:ncol(Dat)) assign(names(Dat)[v], Dat[,v])