UPDATE: The following is a great way to do this without a for loop
dt[,(cols):= - dt[,..cols]]
This is a convenient way to read code easily. But as far as performance is concerned, it remains with Frank's decision according to the microbenchmark result below.
mbm = microbenchmark( base = for (col in 1:length(cols)) { dt[ , eval(parse(text = paste0(cols[col], ":=-1*", cols[col])))] }, franks_solution1 = dt[ , (cols) := lapply(.SD, "*", -1), .SDcols = cols], franks_solution2 = for (j in cols) set(dt, j = j, value = -dt[[j]]), hannes_solution = dt[, c(out_cols) := lapply(.SD, function(x){log(x = x, base = exp(1))}), .SDcols = cols], orhans_solution = for (j in cols) dt[,(j):= -1 * dt[, ..j]], orhans_solution2 = dt[,(cols):= - dt[,..cols]], times=1000 ) mbm Unit: microseconds expr min lq mean median uq max neval base_solution 3874.048 4184.4070 5205.8782 4452.5090 5127.586 69641.789 1000 franks_solution1 313.846 349.1285 448.4770 379.8970 447.384 5654.149 1000 franks_solution2 1500.306 1667.6910 2041.6134 1774.3580 1961.229 9723.070 1000 hannes_solution 326.154 405.5385 561.8263 495.1795 576.000 12432.400 1000 orhans_solution 3747.690 4008.8175 5029.8333 4299.4840 4933.739 35025.202 1000 orhans_solution2 752.000 831.5900 1061.6974 897.6405 1026.872 9913.018 1000
as shown in the chart below

My previous answer: the following also works
for (j in cols) dt[,(j):= -1 * dt[, ..j]]
Orhan Celik Apr 02 '18 at 12:57 2018-04-02 12:57
source share