I'm working in R, and I'd like to define some variables that I (or one of my collaborators) cannot change. In C++ I'd do this:
const std::string path( "/projects/current" );
How do I do this in the R programming language?
Edit for clarity: I know that I can define strings like this in R:
path = "/projects/current"
What I really want is a language construct that guarantees that nobody can ever change the value associated with the variable named "path."
Edit to respond to comments:
It's technically true that const is a compile-time guarantee, but it would be valid in my mind that the R interpreter would throw stop execution with an error message. For example, look what happens when you try to assign values to a numeric constant:
> 7 = 3
Error in 7 = 3 : invalid (do_set) left-hand side to assignment
So what I really want is a language feature that allows you to assign values once and only once, and there should be some kind of error when you try to assign a new value to a variabled declared as const. I don't care if the error occurs at run-time, especially if there's no compilation phase. This might not technically be const by the Wikipedia definition, but it's very close. It also looks like this is not possible in the R programming language.
See lockBinding:
a <- 1
lockBinding("a", globalenv())
a <- 2
Error: cannot change value of locked binding for 'a'
Since you are planning to distribute your code to others, you could (should?) consider to create a package. Create within that package a NAMESPACE. There you can define variables that will have a constant value. At least to the functions that your package uses. Have a look at Tierney (2003) Name Space Management for R
I'm pretty sure that this isn't possible in R. If you're worried about accidentally re-writing the value then the easiest thing to do would be to put all of your constants into a list structure then you know when you're using those values. Something like:
my.consts<-list(pi=3.14159,e=2.718,c=3e8)
Then when you need to access them you have an aide memoir to know what not to do and also it pushes them out of your normal namespace.
Another place to ask would be R development mailing list. Hope this helps.
(Edited for new idea:) The bindenv functions provide an
experimental interface for adjustments to environments and bindings within environments. They allow for locking environments as well as individual bindings, and for linking a variable to a function.
This seems like the sort of thing that could give a false sense of security (like a const pointer to a non-const variable) but it might help.
(Edited for focus:) const is a compile-time guarantee, not a lock-down on bits in memory. Since R doesn't have a compile phase where it looks at all the code at once (it is built for interactive use), there's no way to check that future instructions won't violate any guarantee. If there's a right way to do this, the folks at the R-help list will know. My suggested workaround: fake your own compilation. Write a script to preprocess your R code that will manually substitute the corresponding literal for each appearance of your "constant" variables.
(Original:) What benefit are you hoping to get from having a variable that acts like a C "const"?
Since R has exclusively call-by-value semantics (unless you do some munging with environments), there isn't any reason to worry about clobbering your variables by calling functions on them. Adopting some sort of naming conventions or using some OOP structure is probably the right solution if you're worried about you and your collaborators accidentally using variables with the same names.
The feature you're looking for may exist, but I doubt it given the origin of R as a interactive environment where you'd want to be able to undo your actions.
R doesn't have a language constant feature. The list idea above is good; I personally use a naming convention like ALL_CAPS.
I took the answer below from this website
The simplest sort of R expression is just a constant value, typically a numeric value (a number) or a character value (a piece of text). For example, if we need to specify a number of seconds corresponding to 10 minutes, we specify a number.
> 600
[1] 600
If we need to specify the name of a file that we want to read data from, we specify the name as a character value. Character values must be surrounded by either double-quotes or single-quotes.
> "http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html"
[1] "http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html"
Every time I miss spell this at(#) character while writing R code so what is the usage as it has a special colour so I supposed it was meant to do something useful. Any comments on that?
The "at"-sign is used to access S4 slots. It is the equivalent of the "dollar"-sign used to access lists (of which data.frames are but one example.)
On the other hand you might be talking about its special use in certain external packages? But I'm guessing that's not going to be the case here, because that would imply that you knew quite about about R.
I store important metadata in R objects as attributes. I want to migrate my workflow to Julia and I am looking for a way to represent at least temporarily the attributes as something accessible by Julia. Then I can start thinking about extending the RData package to fill this data structure with actual objects' attributes.
I understand, that annotating with things like label or unit in DataFrame - I think the most important use for object' attributes - is probably going to be implemented in the DataFrames package some time (https://github.com/JuliaData/DataFrames.jl/issues/35). But I am asking about about more general solution, that doesn't depend on this specific use case.
For anyone interested, here is a related discussion in the RData package
In Julia it is ideomatic to define your own types - you'd simply make fields in the type to store the attributes. In R, the nice thing about storing things as attributes is that they don't affect how the type dispatches - e.g. adding metadata to a Vector doesn't make it stop behaving like a Vector. In julia, that approach is a little more complicated - you'd have to define the AbstractVector interface for your type https://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/manual/interfaces/#man-interface-array-1 to have it behave like a Vector.
In essence, this means that the workflow solutions are a little different - e.g. often the attribute metadata in R is used to associate metadata to an object when it's returned from a function. An easy way to do something similar in Julia is to have the function return a tuple and assign the result to a tuple:
function ex()
res = rand(5)
met = "uniformly distributed random numbers"
res, met
end
result, metadata = ex()
I don't think there are plans to implement attributes like in R.
This post (Lazy evaluation in R – is assign affected?) covers some common ground but I am not sure it answers my question.
I stopped using assign when I discovered the apply family quite a while back, albeit, purely for reasons of elegance in situations such as this:
names.foo <- letters
values.foo <- LETTERS
for (i in 1:length(names.foo))
assign(names.foo[i], paste("This is: ", values.foo[i]))
which can be replaced by:
foo <- lapply(X=values.foo, FUN=function (k) paste("This is :", k))
names(foo) <- names.foo
This is also the reason this (http://cran.r-project.org/doc/FAQ/R-FAQ.html#How-can-I-turn-a-string-into-a-variable_003f) R-faq says this should be avoided.
Now, I know that assign is generally frowned upon. But are there other reasons I don't know? I suspect it may mess with the scoping or lazy evaluation but I am not sure? Example code that demonstrates such problems will be great.
Actually those two operations are quite different. The first gives you 26 different objects while the second gives you only one. The second object will be a lot easier to use in analyses. So I guess I would say you have already demonstrated the major downside of assign, namely the necessity of then needing always to use get for corralling or gathering up all the similarly named individual objects that are now "loose" in the global environment. Try imagining how you would serially do anything with those 26 separate objects. A simple lapply(foo, func) will suffice for the second strategy.
That FAQ citation really only says that using assignment and then assigning names is easier, but did not imply it was "bad". I happen to read it as "less functional" since you are not actually returning a value that gets assigned. The effect looks to be a side-effect (and in this case the assign strategy results in 26 separate side-effects). The use of assign seems to be adopted by people that are coming from languages that have global variables as a way of avoiding picking up the "True R Way", i.e. functional programming with data-objects. They really should be learning to use lists rather than littering their workspace with individually-named items.
There is another assignment paradigm that can be used:
foo <- setNames( paste0(letters,1:26), LETTERS)
That creates a named atomic vector rather than a named list, but the access to values in the vector is still done with names given to [.
As the source of fortune(236) I thought I would add a couple examples (also see fortune(174)).
First, a quiz. Consider the following code:
x <- 1
y <- some.function.that.uses.assign(rnorm(100))
After running the above 2 lines of code, what is the value of x?
The assign function is used to commit "Action at a distance" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance_(computer_programming) or google for it). This is often the source of hard to find bugs.
I think the biggest problem with assign is that it tends to lead people down paths of thinking that take them away from better options. A simple example is the 2 sets of code in the question. The lapply solution is more elegant and should be promoted, but the mere fact that people learn about the assign function leads people to the loop option. Then they decide that they need to do the same operation on each object created in the loop (which would be just another simple lapply or sapply if the elegant solution were used) and resort to an even more complicated loop involving both get and apply along with ugly calls to paste. Then those enamored with assign try to do something like:
curname <- paste('myvector[', i, ']')
assign(curname, i)
And that does not do quite what they expected which leads to either complaining about R (which is as fair as complaining that my next door neighbor's house is too far away because I chose to walk the long way around the block) or even worse, delve into using eval and parse to get their constructed string to "work" (which then leads to fortune(106) and fortune(181)).
I'd like to point out that assign is meant to be used with environments.
From that point of view, the "bad" thing in the example above is using a not quite appropriate data structure (the base environment instead of a list or data.frame, vector, ...).
Side note: also for environments, the $ and $<- operators work, so in many cases the explicit assign and get isn't necessary there, neither.
I find myself in the position of having completed a large chunk of analysis and now need to repeat the analysis with slightly different input assumptions.
The analysis, in this case, involves cluster analysis, plotting several graphs, and exporting cluster ids and other variables of interest. The key point is that it is an extensive analysis, and needs to be repeated and compared only twice.
I considered:
Creating a function. This isn't ideal, because then I have to modify my code to know whether I am evaluating in the function or parent environments. This additional effort seems excessive, makes it harder to debug and may introduce side-effects.
Wrap it in a for-loop. Again, not ideal, because then I have to create indexing variables, which can also introduce side-effects.
Creating some pre-amble code, wrapping the analysis in a separate file and source it. This works, but seems very ugly and sub-optimal.
The objective of the analysis is to finish with a set of objects (in a list, or in separate output files) that I can analyse further for differences.
What is a good strategy for dealing with this type of problem?
Making code reusable takes some time, effort and holds a few extra challenges like you mention yourself.
The question whether to invest is probably the key issue in informatics (if not in a lot of other fields): do I write a script to rename 50 files in a similar fashion, or do I go ahead and rename them manually.
The answer, I believe, is highly personal and even then, different case by case. If you are easy on the programming, you may sooner decide to go the reuse route, as the effort for you will be relatively low (and even then, programmers typically like to learn new tricks, so that's a hidden, often counterproductive motivation).
That said, in your particular case: I'd go with the sourcing option: since you plan to reuse the code only 2 times more, a greater effort would probably go wasted (you indicate the analysis to be rather extensive). So what if it's not an elegant solution? Nobody is ever going to see you do it, and everybody will be happy with the swift results.
If it turns out in a year or so that the reuse is higher than expected, you can then still invest. And by that time, you will also have (at least) three cases for which you can compare the results from the rewritten and funky reusable version of your code with your current results.
If/when I do know up front that I'm going to reuse code, I try to keep that in mind while developing it. Either way I hardly ever write code that is not in a function (well, barring the two-liners for SO and other out-of-the-box analyses): I find this makes it easier for me to structure my thoughts.
If at all possible, set parameters that differ between sets/runs/experiments in an external parameter file. Then, you can source the code, call a function, even utilize a package, but the operations are determined by a small set of externally defined parameters.
For instance, JSON works very well for this and the RJSONIO and rjson packages allow you to load the file into a list. Suppose you load it into a list called parametersNN.json. An example is as follows:
{
"Version": "20110701a",
"Initialization":
{
"indices": [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10],
"step_size": 0.05
},
"Stopping":
{
"tolerance": 0.01,
"iterations": 100
}
}
Save that as "parameters01.json" and load as:
library(RJSONIO)
Params <- fromJSON("parameters.json")
and you're off and running. (NB: I like to use unique version #s within my parameters files, just so that I can identify the set later, if I'm looking at the "parameters" list within R.) Just call your script and point to the parameters file, e.g.:
Rscript --vanilla MyScript.R parameters01.json
then, within the program, identify the parameters file from the commandArgs() function.
Later, you can break out code into functions and packages, but this is probably the easiest way to make a vanilla script generalizeable in the short term, and it's a good practice for the long-term, as code should be separated from the specification of run/dataset/experiment-dependent parameters.
Edit: to be more precise, I would even specify input and output directories or files (or naming patterns/prefixes) in the JSON. This makes it very clear how one set of parameters led to one particular output set. Everything in between is just code that runs with a given parametrization, but the code shouldn't really change much, should it?
Update:
Three months, and many thousands of runs, wiser than my previous answer, I'd say that the external storage of parameters in JSON is useful for 1-1000 different runs. When the parameters or configurations number in the thousands and up, it's better to switch to using a database for configuration management. Each configuration may originate in a JSON (or XML), but being able to grapple with different parameter layouts requires a larger scale solution, for which a database like SQLite (via RSQLite) is a fine solution.
I realize this answer is overkill for the original question - how to repeat work only a couple of times, with a few parameter changes, but when scaling up to hundreds or thousands of parameter changes in ongoing research, more extensive tools are necessary. :)
I like to work with combination of a little shell script, a pdf cropping program and Sweave in those cases. That gives you back nice reports and encourages you to source. Typically I work with several files, almost like creating a package (at least I think it feels like that :) . I have a separate file for the data juggling and separate files for different types of analysis, such as descriptiveStats.R, regressions.R for example.
btw here's my little shell script,
#!/bin/sh
R CMD Sweave docSweave.Rnw
for file in `ls pdfs`;
do pdfcrop pdfs/"$file" pdfs/"$file"
done
pdflatex docSweave.tex
open docSweave.pdf
The Sweave file typically sources the R files mentioned above when needed. I am not sure whether that's what you looking for, but that's my strategy so far. I at least I believe creating transparent, reproducible reports is what helps to follow at least A strategy.
Your third option is not so bad. I do this in many cases. You can build a bit more structure by putting the results of your pre-ample code in environments and attach the one you want to use for further analysis.
An example:
setup1 <- local({
x <- rnorm(50, mean=2.0)
y <- rnorm(50, mean=1.0)
environment()
# ...
})
setup2 <- local({
x <- rnorm(50, mean=1.8)
y <- rnorm(50, mean=1.5)
environment()
# ...
})
attach(setup1) and run/source your analysis code
plot(x, y)
t.test(x, y, paired = T, var.equal = T)
...
When finished, detach(setup1) and attach the second one.
Now, at least you can easily switch between setups. Helped me a few times.
I tend to push such results into a global list.
I use Common Lisp but then R isn't so different.
Too late for you here, but I use Sweave a lot, and most probably I'd have used a Sweave file from the beginning (e.g. if I know that the final product needs to be some kind of report).
For repeating parts of the analysis a second and third time, there are then two options:
if the results are rather "independent" (i.e. should produce 3 reports, comparison means the reports are inspected side by side), and the changed input comes in the form of new data files, that goes into its own directory together with a copy of the Sweave file, and I create separate reports (similar to source, but feels more natural for Sweave than for plain source).
if I rather need to do the exactly same thing once or twice again inside one Sweave file I'd consider reusing code chunks. This is similar to the ugly for-loop.
The reason is that then of course the results are together for the comparison, which would then be the last part of the report.
If it is clear from the beginning that there will be some parameter sets and a comparison, I write the code in a way that as soon as I'm fine with each part of the analysis it is wrapped into a function (i.e. I'm acutally writing the function in the editor window, but evaluate the lines directly in the workspace while writing the function).
Given that you are in the described situation, I agree with Nick - nothing wrong with source and everything else means much more effort now that you have it already as script.
I can't make a comment on Iterator's answer so I have to post it here. I really like his answer so I made a short script for creating the parameters and exporting them to external JSON files. And I hope someone finds this useful: https://github.com/kiribatu/Kiribatu-R-Toolkit/blob/master/docs/parameter_configuration.md