Trying to avoid looping with sapply (for gsub)

Trying to avoid using a loop for

in the following code using sapply

if at all possible. The loop solution works great for me, I'm just trying to learn more R and learn as many methods as possible.

Purpose: have a vector i

and two vectors sf

(search) and rp

(replace). For each, i

it is necessary to loop over sf

and replace with rp

where appropriate.

i  = c("1 6 5 4","7 4 3 1")
sf = c("1","2","3")
rp = c("one","two","three")

funn <- function(i) {
  for (j in seq_along(sf)) i = gsub(sf[j],rp[j],i,fixed=T)
  return(i)
}
print(funn(i))

      

        
        
        
      

    

Result (correct):

[1] "one 6 5 4"     "7 4 three one"

      

        
        
        
      

    

I would like to do the same, but with sapply

#Trying to avoid a for loop in a fun
#funn1 <- function(i) {
#  i = gsub(sf,rp,i,fixed=T)
#  return(i)
#}
#print(sapply(i,funn1))

      

        
        
        
      

    

Apparently the above code won't work as I can only get the first item sf

. This is my first time using it sapply

, so I'm not really sure how to convert the "inner" implicit loop into a vectorial solution. Any help (even the expression is not possible) is appreciated!

(I know mgsub

, but this is not a solution here. I would like to keep gsub

)

EDIT: complete code with packages and below solutions and timelines:

#timing
library(microbenchmark)
library(functional)

i  = rep(c("1 6 5 4","7 4 3 1"),10000)
sf = rep(c("1","2","3"),100)
rp = rep(c("one","two","three"),100)

#Loop
funn <- function(i) {
  for (j in seq_along(sf)) i = gsub(sf[j],rp[j],i,fixed=T)
  return(i)
}
t1 = proc.time()
k = funn(i)
t2 = proc.time()

#print(k)

print(microbenchmark(funn(i),times=10))

#mapply
t3 = proc.time()
mapply(function(u,v) i<<-gsub(u,v,i), sf, rp)
t4 = proc.time()

#print(i)

print(microbenchmark(mapply(function(u,v) i<<-gsub(u,v,i), sf, rp),times=10))

#Curry
t5 = proc.time()
Reduce(Compose, Map(function(u,v) Curry(gsub, pattern=u, replacement=v), sf, rp))(i)
t6 = proc.time()

print(microbenchmark(Reduce(Compose, Map(function(u,v) Curry(gsub, pattern=u, replacement=v), sf, rp))(i), times=10))

#4th option
n <- length(sf)
sf <- setNames(sf,1:n)
rp <- setNames(rp,1:n)

t7 = proc.time()
Reduce(function(x,j) gsub(sf[j],rp[j],x,fixed=TRUE),c(list(i),as.list(1:n)))
t8 = proc.time()

print(microbenchmark(Reduce(function(x,j) gsub(sf[j],rp[j],x,fixed=TRUE),c(list(i),as.list(1:n))),times=10))

#Usual proc.time
print(t2-t1)
print(t4-t3)
print(t6-t5)
print(t8-t7)

      

        
        
        
      

    

Time:

Unit: milliseconds
    expr min  lq mean median  uq max neval
 funn(i) 143 143  149    145 147 165    10
Unit: seconds
                                               expr min  lq mean median  uq max neval
 mapply(function(u, v) i <<- gsub(u, v, i), sf, rp) 4.1 4.2  4.4    4.3 4.4 4.9    10
Unit: seconds
                                                                                           expr min  lq mean median  uq max neval
 Reduce(Compose, Map(function(u, v) Curry(gsub, pattern = u, replacement = v),      sf, rp))(i) 1.6 1.6  1.7    1.7 1.7 1.7    10
Unit: milliseconds
                                                                                      expr min  lq mean median  uq max neval
 Reduce(function(x, j) gsub(sf[j], rp[j], x, fixed = TRUE), c(list(i),      as.list(1:n))) 141 144  147    145 146 162    10
   user  system elapsed 
   0.15    0.00    0.15 
   user  system elapsed 
   4.49    0.03    4.52 
   user  system elapsed 
   1.68    0.02    1.68 
   user  system elapsed 
   0.19    0.00    0.18 

      

        
        
        
      

    

So, indeed, in this case, the loop for

suggests the best timing and, in my opinion, the simplest, simplest, and possibly elegant. Bonding to the hinge.

Thanks everyone. All proposals are accepted and approved.