From suharto_anggono at yahoo.com  Sun Sep 25 16:12:10 2016
From: suharto_anggono at yahoo.com (Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono)
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 14:12:10 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Rd] Undocumented 'use.names' argument to c()
References: <1598063985.4335611.1474812730344.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1598063985.4335611.1474812730344@mail.yahoo.com>

>From comments in http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24815572/why-does-function-c-accept-an-undocumented-argument/24815653 : The code of c() and unlist() was formerly shared but has been (long time passing) separated. From July 30, 1998, is where do_c got split into do_c and do_unlist.

With the implementation of 'c.Date' in R devel r71350, an argument named 'use.names' is included for concatenation. So, it doesn't follow the documented 'c'. But, 'c.Date' is not explicitly documented in Dates.Rd, that has 'c.Date' as an alias.
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 24/9/16, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Rd] Undocumented 'use.names' argument to c()
 To: "Karl Millar" <kmillar at google.com>

 Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2016, 9:12 PM
 
 >>>>> Karl Millar via R-devel <r-devel at r-project.org>
>>>>>     on Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:12:49 -0700 writes:

    > I'd expect that a lot of the performance overhead could be eliminated
    > by simply improving the underlying code.  IMHO, we should ignore it in
    > deciding the API that we want here.

I agree partially.  Even if the underlying code can be made
faster, the 'use.names = FALSE' version will still be faster
than the default, notably in some "long" cases.

More further down.

    > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Henrik Bengtsson
    > <henrik.bengtsson at gmail.com> wrote:
    >> I'd vote for it to stay.  It could of course suprise someone who'd
    >> expect c(list(a=1), b=2, use.names = FALSE) to generate list(a=1, b=2,
    >> use.names=FALSE).   On the upside, is the performance gain from using
    >> use.names=FALSE.  Below benchmarks show that the combining of the
    >> names attributes themselves takes ~20-25 times longer than the
    >> combining of the integers themselves.  Also, at no surprise,
    >> use.names=FALSE avoids some memory allocations.
    >> 
    >>> options(digits = 2)
    >>> 
    >>> a <- b <- c <- d <- 1:1e4
    >>> names(c) <- c
    >>> names(d) <- d
    >>> 
    >>> stats <- microbenchmark::microbenchmark(
    >> +   c(a, b, use.names=FALSE),
    >> +   c(c, d, use.names=FALSE),
    >> +   c(a, d, use.names=FALSE),
    >> +   c(a, b, use.names=TRUE),
    >> +   c(a, d, use.names=TRUE),
    >> +   c(c, d, use.names=TRUE),
    >> +   unit = "ms"
    >> + )
    >>> 
    >>> stats
    >> Unit: milliseconds
    >> expr   min    lq  mean median    uq   max neval
    >> c(a, b, use.names = FALSE) 0.031 0.032 0.049  0.034 0.036 1.474   100
    >> c(c, d, use.names = FALSE) 0.031 0.031 0.035  0.034 0.035 0.064   100
    >> c(a, d, use.names = FALSE) 0.031 0.031 0.049  0.034 0.035 1.452   100
    >> c(a, b, use.names = TRUE) 0.031 0.031 0.055  0.034 0.036 2.094   100
    >> c(a, d, use.names = TRUE) 0.510 0.526 0.588  0.549 0.617 1.998   100
    >> c(c, d, use.names = TRUE) 0.780 0.815 0.886  0.841 0.944 1.430   100
    >> 
    >>> profmem::profmem(c(c, d, use.names=FALSE))
    >> Rprofmem memory profiling of:
    >> c(c, d, use.names = FALSE)
    >> 
    >> Memory allocations:
    >> bytes      calls
    >> 1     80040 <internal>
    >> total 80040
    >> 
    >>> profmem::profmem(c(c, d, use.names=TRUE))
    >> Rprofmem memory profiling of:
    >> c(c, d, use.names = TRUE)
    >> 
    >> Memory allocations:
    >> bytes      calls
    >> 1      80040 <internal>
    >> 2     160040 <internal>
    >> total 240080
    >> 
    >> /Henrik
    >> 
    >> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:25 AM, William Dunlap via R-devel
    >> <r-devel at r-project.org> wrote:
    >>> In Splus c() and unlist() called the same C code, but with a different
    >>> 'sys_index'  code (the last argument to .Internal) and c() did not consider
    >>> an argument named 'use.names' special.

Thank you, Bill, very much, for making the historical context
clear, and giving us the facts, there.

OTOH, it is also true in R, that  c() and unlist() share code
.. quite a bit less though .. but more importantly, the very
original C code of Ross Ihaka (and possibly Robert Gentleman)
had explicitly considered both extra arguments 'recursive' and
'use.names', and not just the first.

The fact that c() has always been a .Primitive function and that
these have no formals()  had contributed to what I think to be a
documentation glitch early on, and when, quite a bit later, we've
added a fake argument list for printing, the then current
documentation was used.

This was the reason for declaring it a documentation "hole"
rather than something we do not want.

(read on)

    >>>> c
    >>> function(..., recursive = F)
    >>> .Internal(c(..., recursive = recursive), "S_unlist", TRUE, 1)
    >>>> unlist
    >>> function(data, recursive = T, use.names = T)
    >>> .Internal(unlist(data, recursive = recursive, use.names = use.names),
    >>> "S_unlist", TRUE, 2)
    >>>> c(A=1,B=2,use.names=FALSE)
    >>> A B use.names
    >>> 1 2         0
    >>> 
    >>> The C code used sys_index==2 to mean 'the last  argument is the 'use.names'
    >>> argument, if sys_index==1 only the recursive argument was considered
    >>> special.
    >>> 
    >>> Sys.funs.c:
    >>> 405 S_unlist(vector *ent, vector *arglist, s_evaluator *S_evaluator)
    >>> 406 {
    >>> 407         int which = sys_index; boolean named, recursive, names;
    >>> ...
    >>> 419         args = arglist->value.tree; n = arglist->length;
    >>> ...
    >>> 424         names = which==2 ? logical_value(args[--n], ent, S_evaluator)
    >>> : (which == 1);
    >>> 
    >>> Thus there is no historical reason for giving c() the use.names argument.
    >>> 
    >>> 
    >>> Bill Dunlap
    >>> TIBCO Software
    >>> wdunlap tibco.com
    >>> 
    >>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono via
    >>> R-devel <r-devel at r-project.org> wrote:
    >>> 
    >>>> In S-PLUS 3.4 help on 'c' (http://www.uni-muenster.de/
    >>>> ZIV.BennoSueselbeck/s-html/helpfiles/c.html), there is no 'use.names'
    >>>> argument.
    >>>> 
    >>>> Because 'c' is a generic function, I don't think that changing formal
    >>>> arguments is good.
    >>>> 
    >>>> In R devel r71344, 'use.names' is not an argument of functions 'c.Date',
    >>>> 'c.POSIXct' and 'c.difftime'.
You are right, Suharto, that methods for c() currently have no
such argument.

But again because c() is primitive and has a '...' at the
beginning, this does not explicitly hurt, currently, does it?

    >>>> Could 'use.names' be documented to be accepted by the default method of
    >>>> 'c', but not listed as a formal argument of 'c'?
    >>>> Or, could the code that handles the argument name
    >>>> 'use.names' be removed? 

In principle, of course both could happen, and if one of these
two was preferable to the current state, I'd tend to the first one:
Consider 'use.names [= FALSE]' just an argument of the default
method for c(),  so existing c() methods would not have a strong need
for updating.

Notably, as the S4 generic for c,
via lines 48-49 of src/library/methods/R/BasicFunsList.R

, "c" = structure(function(x, ..., recursive = FALSE) standardGeneric("c"),
                  signature="x")

has never had 'recursive' as part of the signature..
(and yes, that line 48 does need an update too !!!).

Martin


    >>>> ----------------
    >>>> >>>>> David Winsemius <dwinsemius at comcast.net>
    >>>> >>>>>     on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:46:48 -0700 writes:
    >>>> 
    >>>> >> On Sep 20, 2016, at 7:18 PM, Karl Millar via R-devel <r-devel at
    r-project.org> wrote:
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >> 'c' has an undocumented 'use.names' argument.  I'm not sure if this
    >>>> is
    >>>> >> a documentation or implementation bug.
    >>>> 
    >>>> > It came up on stackoverflow a couple of years ago:
    >>>> 
    >>>> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24815572/why-does-
    >>>> function-c-accept-an-undocumented-argument/24815653#24815653
    >>>> 
    >>>> > At the time it appeared to me to be a documentation lag.
    >>>> 
    >>>> Thank you, Karl and David,
    >>>> yes it is a documentation glitch ... and a bit more:  Experts know that
    >>>> print()ing of primitive functions is, eehm, "special".
    >>>> 
    >>>> I've committed a change to R-devel ... (with the intent to port
    >>>> to R-patched).
    >>>> 
    >>>> Martin
    >>>> 
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >>> c(a = 1)
    >>>> >> a
    >>>> >> 1
    >>>> >>> c(a = 1, use.names = F)
    >>>> >> [1] 1
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >> Karl
    >>>>



[Rd] Undocumented 'use.names' argument to c()
Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono