I'm having trouble working with a data table in R. This is probably something really simple but I can't find the solution anywhere.
Here is what I have:
Let's say t is the data table
colNames <- names(t)
for (col in colNames) {
print (t$col)
}
When I do this, it prints NULL. However, if I do it manually, it works fine -- say a column name is "sample". If I type t$"sample" into the R prompt, it works fine. What am I doing wrong here?
You need t[[col]]; t$col does an odd form of evaluation.
edit: incorporating #joran's explanation:
t$col tries to find an element literally named 'col' in list t, not what you happen to have stored as a value in a variable named col.
$ is convenient for interactive use, because it is shorter and one can skip quotation marks (i.e. t$foo vs. t[["foo"]]. It also does partial matching, which is very convenient but can under unusual circumstances be dangerous or confusing: i.e. if a list contains an element foolicious, then t$foo will retrieve it. For this reason it is not generally recommended for programming.
[[ can take either a literal string ("foo") or a string stored in a variable (col), and does not do partial matching. It is generally recommended for programming (although there's no harm in using it interactively).
Related
I'm trying to rename a specific column in my R script using the colnames function but with no sucess so far.
I'm kinda new around programming so it may be something simple to solve.
Basically, I'm trying to rename a column called Reviewer Overall Notes and name it Nota Final in a data frame called notas with the codes:
colnames(notas$`Reviewer Overall Notes`) <- `Nota Final`
and it returns to me:
> colnames(notas$`Reviewer Overall Notes`) <- `Nota Final`
Error: object 'Nota Final' not found
I also found in [this post][1] a code that goes:
colnames(notas) [13] <- `Nota Final`
But it also return the same message.
What I'm doing wrong?
Ps:. Sorry for any misspeling, English is not my primary language.
You probably want
colnames(notas)[colnames(notas) == "Reviewer Overall Notes"] <- "Nota Final"
(#Whatif's answer shows how you can do this with the numeric index, but probably better practice to do it this way; working with strings rather than column indices makes your code both easier to read [you can see what you're renaming] and more robust [in case the order of columns changes in the future])
Alternatively,
notas <- notas %>% dplyr::rename(`Nota Final` = `Reviewer Overall Notes`)
Here you do use back-ticks, because tidyverse (of which dplyr is a part) prefers its arguments to be passed as symbols rather than strings.
Why using backtick? Use the normal quotation mark.
colnames(notas)[13] <- 'Nota Final'
This seems to matter:
df <- data.frame(a = 1:4)
colnames(df)[1] <- `b`
Error: object 'b' not found
You should not use single or double quotes in naming:
I have learned that we should not use space in names. If there are spaces in names (it works and is called a non-syntactic name: And according to Wickham Hadley's description in Advanced R book this is due to historical reasons:
"You can also create non-syntactic bindings using single or double quotes (e.g. "_abc" <- 1) instead of backticks, but you shouldn’t, because you’ll have to use a different syntax to retrieve the values. The ability to use strings on the left hand side of the assignment arrow is an historical artefact, used before R supported backticks."
To get an overview what syntactic names are use ?make.names:
make.names("Nota Final")
[1] "Nota.Final"
My question refers to redundant code and a problem that I've been having with a lot of my R-Code.
Consider the following:
list_names<-c("putnam","einstein","newton","kant","hume","locke","leibniz")
combined_df_putnam$fu_time<-combined_df_putnam$age*365.25
combined_df_einstein$fu_time<-combined_einstein$age*365.25
combined_df_newton$fu_time<-combined_newton$age*365.25
...
combined_leibniz$fu_time<-combined_leibniz$age*365.25
I am trying to slim-down my code to do something like this:
list_names<-c("putnam","einstein","newton","kant","hume","locke","leibniz")
paste0("combined_df_",list_names[0:7]) <- data.frame("age"=1)
paste0("combined_df_",list_names[0:7]) <- paste0("combined_df_",list_names[0:7])$age*365.25
When I try to do that, I get "target of assignment expands to non-language object".
Basically, I want to create a list that contains descriptors, use that list to create a list of dataframes/lists and use these shortcuts again to do calculations. Right now, I am copy-pasting these assignments and this has led to various mistakes because I failed to replace the "name" from the previous line in some cases.
Any ideas for a solution to my problem would be greatly appreciated!
The central problem is that you are trying to assign a value (or data.frame) to the result of a function.
In paste0("combined_df_",list_names[0:7]) <- data.frame("age"=1), the left-hand-side returns a character vector:
> paste0("combined_df_",list_names[0:7])
[1] "combined_df_putnam" "combined_df_einstein" "combined_df_newton"
[4] "combined_df_kant" "combined_df_hume" "combined_df_locke"
[7] "combined_df_leibniz"
R will not just interpret these strings as variables that should be created and be referenced to. For that, you should look at the function assign.
Similarily, in the code paste0("combined_df_",list_names[0:7])$age*365.25, the paste0 function does not refer to variables, but simply returns a character vector -- for which the $ operator is not accepted.
There are many ways to solve your problem, but I will recommend that you create a function that performs the necessary operations of each data frame. The function should then return the data frame. You can then re-use the function for all 7 philosophers/scientists.
Consider the following:
y<-c("A","B","C")
x<-z<-c(1,2,3)
names(x)<-y
"names<-"(z,y)
If you run this code, you will discover that names(x)<-y is not identical to "names<-"(z,y). In particular, one sees that names(x)<-y actually changes the names of x whereas "names<-"(z,y) returns z with its names changed.
Why is this? I was under the impression that the difference between writing a function normally and writing it as an infix operator was only one of syntax, rather than something that actually changes the output. Where in the documentation is this difference discussed?
Short answer: names(x)<-y is actually sugar for x<-"names<-"(x,y) and not just "names<-"(x,y). See the the R-lang manual, pages 18-19 (pages 23-24 of the PDF), which comes to basically the same example.
For example, names(x) <- c("a","b") is equivalent to:
`*tmp*`<-x
x <- "names<-"(`*tmp*`, value=c("a","b"))
rm(`*tmp*`)
If more familiar with getter/setter, one can think that if somefunction is a getter function, somefunction<- is the corresponding setter. In R, where each object is immutable, it's more correct to call the setter a replacement function, because the function actually creates a new object identical to the old one, but with an attribute added/modified/removed and replaces with this new object the old one.
In the case example for instance, the names attribute are not just added to x; rather a new object with the same values of x but with the names is created and linked to the x symbol.
Since there are still some doubts about why the issue is discussed in the language doc instead directly on ?names, here is a small recap of this property of the R language.
You can define a function with the name you wish (there are some restrictions of course) and the name does not impact in any way if the function is called "normally".
However, if you name a function with the <- suffix, it becomes a replacement function and allows the parser to apply the function with the mechanism described at the beginning of this answer if called by the syntax foo(x)<-value. See here that you don't call explicitely foo<-, but with a slightly different syntax you obtain an object replacement (since the name).
Although there are not formal restrictions, it's common to define getter/setter in R with the same name (for instance names and names<-). In this case, the <- suffix function is the replacement function of the corresponding version without suffix.
As stated at the beginning, this behaviour is general and a property of the language, so it doesn't need to be discussed in any replacement function doc.
In particular, one sees that names(x)<-y actually changes the names of x whereas "names<-"(z,y) returns z with its names changed.
That’s because `names<-`1 is a regular function, albeit with an odd name2. It performs no assignment, it returns a new object with the names attribute set. In fact `names<-` is a primitive function in R but it could be implemented as follows (there are shorter, better ways of writing this in R, but I want the separate steps to be explicit):
`names<-` = function (x, value) {
new = x
attr(new, 'names') = value
new
}
That is, it
… creates a new object that’s a copy of x,
… sets the names attribute on that newly created object, and
… returns the new object.
Since virtually all objects in R are immutable, this fits naturally into R’s semantics. In fact, a better name for this exact function would be with_names3. But the creators of R found it convenient to be able to write such an assignment without repeating the name of the object. So instead of writing
x = with_names(x, c('foo', 'bar'))
or
x = `names<-`(x, c('foo', 'bar'))
R allows us to write
names(x) = c('foo', 'bar')
R handles this syntax specially by internally converting it to another expression, documented in the Subset assignment section of the R language definition, as explained in the answer by Nicola.
But the gist is that names(x) = y and `names<-`(x, y) are different because … they just are. The former is a special syntactic form that gets recognised and transformed by the R parser. The latter is a regular function call, and the weird function name is a red herring: it doesn’t affect the execution whatsoever. It does the same as if the function was named differently, and you can confirm this by assigning it a different name:
with_names = `names<-`
`another weird(!) name` = `names<-`
# These are all identical:
`names<-`(x, y)
with_names(x, y)
`another weird(!) name`(x, y)
1 I strongly encourage using backtick quotes (`) instead of straight quotes (' or ") to quote R variable names. While both are allowed in some circumstances, the latter invites confusion with strings, and is conceptually bonkers. These are not strings. Consider:
"a" = "b"
"c" = "a"
Rather than copy the value of a into c, what this code actually does is set c to literal "a", because quotes now mean different things on the left- and right-hand side of assignment.
The R documentation confirms that
The preferred quote [for variable names] is the backtick (`)
2 Regular variable names (aka “identifiers” or just “names”) in R can only contain letters, digits, underscore and the dot, must start with a letter, or with a dot not followed by a digit, and can’t be reserved words. But R allows using pretty much arbitrary characters — including punctuation and even spaces! — in variable names, provided the name is backtick-quoted.
3 In fact, R has an almost-alias for this function, called setNames — which isn’t a great name, since set… implies mutating the object, but of course it doesn’t do that.
I have a list of identifiers as follows:
url_num <- c('85054655', '85023543', '85001177', '84988480', '84978776', '84952756', '84940316', '84916976', '84901819', '84884081', '84862066', '84848942', '84820189', '84814935', '84808144')
And from each of these I'm creating a unique variable:
for (id in url_num){
assign(paste('test_', id, sep = ""), FUNCTION GOES HERE)
}
This leaves me with my variables which are:
test_8505465, test_85023543, etc, etc
Each of them hold the correct output from the function (I've checked), however my next step is to combine them into one big vector which holds all of these created variables as a seperate element in the vector. This is easy enough via:
c(test_85054655,test_85023543,test_85001177,test_84988480,test_84978776,test_84952756,test_84940316,test_84916976,test_84901819,test_84884081,test_84862066,test_84848942,test_84820189,test_84814935,test_84808144)
However, as I update the original 'url_num' vector with new identifiers, I'd also have to come down to the above chunk and update this too!
Surely there's a more automated way I can setup the above chunk?
Maybe some sort of concat() function in the original for-loop which just adds each created variable straight into an empty vector right then and there?
So far I've just been trying to list all the variable names and somehow get the output to be in an acceptable format to get thrown straight into the c() function.
for (id in url_num){
cat(as.name(paste('test_', id, ",", sep = "")))
}
...which results in:
test_85054655,test_85023543,test_85001177,test_84988480,test_84978776,test_84952756,test_84940316,test_84916976,test_84901819,test_84884081,test_84862066,test_84848942,test_84820189,test_84814935,test_84808144,
This is close to the output I'm looking for but because it's using the cat() function it's essentially a print statement and its output can't really get put anywhere. Not to mention I feel like this method I've attempted is wrong to begin with and there must be something simpler I'm missing.
Thanks in advance for any help you guys can give me!
Troy
I have (fbodata) 'data.frame': 6181090 obs. of 41 variables:
I want to subset it and save the portion that pertains to a specific subset (like a zip). My approach seems to work when it is not in a function, but I ultimately want to use sapply.
nmakedir <- function(item, ccol) {
snipped a bunch of code that works
trim<- fbodata[ which(paste(ccol)==item),]
trim%>% drop_na(paste(ccol))
trim<- droplevels(trim
save(trim, file = paste(item, "rda", sep="."))
}
The line that doesn't work is one where I creating the subset with which. If i hardcode the line using fbodata$zip instead of paste(ccol) it works fine. Eventually, I plan to call it with something like:
sapply(unique(fbodata$zip),zip, FUN = nmakedir)
I appreciate any clues, I have been on this for a good long while.
A few things going on:
ccol is a string. paste(ccol) is the same string. You never need to call paste with only one argument. (You can use paste to coerce non-strings to strings, but in that case you should use as.character() to be clear.)
Keeping in mind that ccol is a string, what is fbodata$zip? It's a column! What is the equivalent using ccol and brackets? fbodata[[ccol]] or fbodata[, ccol]. You can use either of those interchangeably with fbodata$zip. So, this bad line
fbodata[ which(paste(ccol)==item),]
# should be this:
fbodata[which(fbodata[[ccol]] == item), ]
drop_na, like most dplyr functions, expects (quoting from the help) "bare variable names", not strings. Also from the help, "See Also: drop_na_ for a version that uses regular evaluation and is suitable for programming with". In this case, I don't think you need to do anything more than replace drop_na with drop_na_.
You are missing a right parenthesis on your droplevels command.
There might be more, but this is much as I can see without any sample data. Your sapply call looks funny to me because I thought zip is supposed to be a column name, but when you call sapply(unique(fbodata$zip),zip, FUN = nmakedir) it needs to be an object in your global environment. I would think sapply(unique(fbodata$zip), 'zip', FUN = nmakedir) makes more sense, but without a reproducile example there's no way to know.
It also seems like you're coding your own version of split. I would probably start this off with fbo_split = split(fbodata, fbodata$zip) and then use lapply to drop_na_, droplevels, and save, but maybe your snipped code makes that a less good idea.