In the case of arithmetic methods you might not know or care whether the generic is, say, + or -.
On 5/10/06, Seth Falcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've recently come across two pieces of code using calls to > callGeneric() inside the definition of a method. > > In both cases, it appears to me that the callGeneric call could be > replaced with a "real" call to the generic, say foo(x) instead of > callGeneric(x) inside method foo. > > My understanding from the docs is that when called with arguments, it > is just like calling the actual generic. Clear enough, but what does > this provide that just calling the actual generic doesn't? > > Similarly, when would one want to make the recursive call that results > from calling callGeneric with no args? > > Thanks, > > + seth > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
