From ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk  Mon Jan 19 19:13:42 2004
From: ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk (Prof Brian Ripley)
Date: Mon Jan 19 19:12:12 2004
Subject: [Rd] Wish list
In-Reply-To: <20040119130316.5462409c.feh3k@spamcop.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401191810230.5031-100000@gannet.stats>

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Frank E Harrell Jr wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:17:39 +0000 (GMT)
> Prof Brian Ripley <ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Are you sure there is a measurable difference in calling methods
> > directly? The dispatch overhead on formula (one of your uses) appears to
> > be about 10 microseconds.  (Note, negligible even for 10,000
> > bootstraps.)
> > 
> > I believe we took the real performance penalties into account (and 
> > namespaces had performance pluses as well as minuses).
> 
> Brian,
> 
> I don't worry about dispatch overhead.  I do worry about overhead of
> assembling model matrices, removing rows with NAs, etc.  -Frank

Here is what you said:

> The point of calling methods directly is efficiency, otherwise I would not
> use this dirty practice.  When bootstrapping or otherwise calling methods

and your code is failing in R-devel because you are calling
formula.default. So, *why* are you calling formula.default?

Calling e.g. glm.fit not glm is not to do with methods, and apparently
survfit.km is not a method.

-- 
Brian D. Ripley,                  ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk
Professor of Applied Statistics,  http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272866 (PA)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595


[Rd] Wish list
Prof Brian Ripley