[R] The end of Matlab

[Wacek Kusnierczyk]

>> Wacek:
>>   
>>     
>>> x[3:]
>>> instead of
>>> x[3:length(x)]
>>> x[3:end]
>>>     
>>>       
>> I don't think that would help: 
>> what to use for end - 3 within the convention that negative values mean 
>> exclusion?
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
> might seem tricky, but not impossible:
>
> x[-2]
> # could mean 'all except for 2nd', as it is now
>
> x[1:-2]
> # could mean 'from start to the 2nd backwards from the end'
>
> since r disallows mixing positive and negative indexing, the above would
> not be ambiguous.  worse with
>
> x[-3:-1]
>
> which could mean both 'except for 3rd, 2nd, and 1st' and 'from the 3rd
> to the 1st from the end', and so would be ambiguous.  in this context,
> indeed, having explicit 'end' could help avoid the ambiguity.
>
>   

on the other hand, another possible solution would be to have ':' mean,
inside range selection expressions, not the usual sequence generation,
but rather specification of start and end indices:

x[1:2]
# from 1st to 2nd, inclusive

x[seq(1,2)]
# same as above

x[c(1,2)]
# same as above

x[1:-2]
# from 1st to 2nd from the end, not x[c(1,0,-1,-2)]

x[seq(1,-2)]
# no way, mixed indices

x[-2:-1]
# from 2nd to 1st, both from the end, not x[c(-2,-1)]

x[length(x) + -1:0]
# same as above

x[seq(-2,-1)]
# except for 2nd and 1st

x[c(-2,-1)]
# same as above

x[2:]
# from 2nd up

x[seq(2, max(2, length(x)))]
# same as above (would not be without max)

x[:3]
# up to 3rd

x[seq(1,3)]
# same as above

x[:-3]
# up to 3rd from the end

x[seq(1, length(x)-2)]
# same as above

with additional specifications for the behaviour in case of invalid
indices and decreasing indices:

x[2:1]
# from the 2nd to the 1st, in reverse order
# or nothing, invalid indexing

which can be easily done with the unambiguous x[seq(2,1)] or x[c(2,1)]

this is daydreaming, of course, because such modifications would break
much old code, and the benefit may not outweigh the effort.

vQ