> > Or is this a bug in glm? It certainly seems that the documentation > > should mention that ... is passed to glm.control, which only takes > > three arguments. I realise that this doesn't come up very often > > during an interactive model fitting session, and it is easy to remedy > > when it does, but it makes writing robust functions hard when a > > function with ... does in fact have a fixed argument list. > > I think the docmentation has conflated '...' for glm and '...' for > weights. > > My recollection is that this was intentional: at least one core developer > used to dislike '...' as it allowed mistyped argument names to be ignored. > And he has a good point, IMO.
That seems a perfectly good reason not to use ... - but if you are going to use ... it seems like you shouldn't warn on mismatched argument names. Maybe I can attack the problem in the opposite direction - instead of matching the parameters of the function I'm calling, I'll try and remove the parameters that probably belong to ggplot. Hadley -- http://had.co.nz/ ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
