[Rd] RFC: tapply(*, ..., init.value = NA)

[Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono]

The "no factor combination" case is distinguishable by 'tapply' with simplify=FALSE.

> D2 <- data.frame(n = gl(3,4), L = gl(6,2, labels=LETTERS[1:6]), N=3)
> D2 <- D2[-c(1,5), ]
> DN <- D2; DN[1,"N"] <- NA
> with(DN, tapply(N, list(n,L), FUN=sum, simplify=FALSE))
  A    B    C    D    E    F
1 NA   6    NULL NULL NULL NULL
2 NULL NULL 3    6    NULL NULL
3 NULL NULL NULL NULL 6    6


There is an old related discussion starting on https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2007-November/047338.html .

----------------------------------
Last week, we've talked here about "xtabs(), factors and NAs",
 ->  https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2017-January/073621.html

In the mean time, I've spent several hours on the issue
and also committed changes to R-devel "in two iterations".

In the case there is a *Left* hand side part to xtabs() formula,
see the help page example using 'esoph',
it uses  tapply(...,  FUN = sum)   and
I now think there is a missing feature in tapply() there, which
I am proposing to change. 

Look at a small example:

> D2 <- data.frame(n = gl(3,4), L = gl(6,2, labels=LETTERS[1:6]), N=3)[-c(1,5), ]; xtabs(~., D2)
, , N = 3

   L
n   A B C D E F
  1 1 2 0 0 0 0
  2 0 0 1 2 0 0
  3 0 0 0 0 2 2

> DN <- D2; DN[1,"N"] <- NA; DN
   n L  N
2  1 A NA
3  1 B  3
4  1 B  3
6  2 C  3
7  2 D  3
8  2 D  3
9  3 E  3
10 3 E  3
11 3 F  3
12 3 F  3
> with(DN, tapply(N, list(n,L), FUN=sum))
   A  B  C  D  E  F
1 NA  6 NA NA NA NA
2 NA NA  3  6 NA NA
3 NA NA NA NA  6  6
>  

and as you can see, the resulting matrix has NAs, all the same
NA_real_, but semantically of two different kinds:

1) at ["1", "A"], the  NA  comes from the NA in 'N'
2) all other NAs come from the fact that there is no such factor combination
   *and* from the fact that tapply() uses

   array(dim = .., dimnames = ...)

i.e., initializes the array with NAs  (see definition of 'array').

My proposition is the following patch to  tapply(), adding a new
option 'init.value':

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-tapply <- function (X, INDEX, FUN = NULL, ..., simplify = TRUE)
+tapply <- function (X, INDEX, FUN = NULL, ..., init.value = NA, simplify = TRUE)
 {
     FUN <- if (!is.null(FUN)) match.fun(FUN)
     if (!is.list(INDEX)) INDEX <- list(INDEX)
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@
     index <- as.logical(lengths(ans))  # equivalently, lengths(ans) > 0L
     ans <- lapply(X = ans[index], FUN = FUN, ...)
     if (simplify && all(lengths(ans) == 1L)) {
-	ansmat <- array(dim = extent, dimnames = namelist)
+	ansmat <- array(init.value, dim = extent, dimnames = namelist)
 	ans <- unlist(ans, recursive = FALSE)
     } else {
 	ansmat <- array(vector("list", prod(extent)),

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

With that, I can set the initial value to '0' instead of array's
default of NA :

> with(DN, tapply(N, list(n,L), FUN=sum, init.value=0))
   A B C D E F
1 NA 6 0 0 0 0
2  0 0 3 6 0 0
3  0 0 0 0 6 6
> 

which now has 0 counts and NA  as is desirable to be used inside
xtabs().

All fine... and would not be worth a posting to R-devel,
except for this:

The change will not be 100% back compatible -- by necessity: any new argument for
tapply() will make that argument name not available to be
specified (via '...') for 'FUN'.  The new function would be

> str(tapply)
function (X, INDEX, FUN = NULL, ..., init.value = NA, simplify = TRUE)  

where the '...' are passed FUN(),  and with the new signature,
'init.value' then won't be passed to FUN  "anymore" (compared to
R <= 3.3.x).

For that reason, we could use   'INIT.VALUE' instead (possibly decreasing
the probability the arg name is used in other functions).


Opinions?

Thank you in advance,
Martin