Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[S\]\s+Yet\s+Another\s+Vectorization\s+Question\s+Answered\!\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[S\]\s+Yet\s+Another\s+Vectorization\s+Question\s+Answered\!\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [S] Yet Another Vectorization Question Answered! (score: 1): Author: Kim Elmore <elmore@nssl.noaa.gov>; Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:31:07 -0500 (CDT); As usual, the list is wonderfully helpful and informatve. I've been inundated with replies. Again, as always, I'm mystified by the number of ways people come up with solutions. It's grand! My origina; /archives/html/s-news/1999-09/msg00229.html (7,997 bytes)
2. RE: [S] Yet Another Vectorization Question Answered! (score: 1): Author: "CHASALOW, SCOTT [AG/2165]" <SCOTT.CHASALOW@cereon.com>; Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:49:24 -0500; In the old days, before colSums() existed, and when lapply() was substantially slower than it is now, I would use this: rep(1, nrow(dfr)) %*% (dfr < 0) which gives the number of negative values in e; /archives/html/s-news/1999-09/msg00240.html (8,784 bytes)
3. RE: [S] Yet Another Vectorization Question Answered! (score: 1): Author: Prof Brian D Ripley <ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk>; Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 07:28:46 +0100 (BST); [...] I did send a reply to Kim Elmore yesterday, with comparative timings. If you start with a matrix, I found this fastest on 3.4 and 5.1. If you start with a data frame, unlist(lapply was faster.; /archives/html/s-news/1999-09/msg00243.html (9,921 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]