> -----Original Message-----
> From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org
> [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Duncan Murdoch
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 7:12 AM
> To: Stavros Macrakis
> Cc: xinlee...@stat.math.ethz.ch; r-de...@stat.math.ethz.ch
> Subject: Re: [Rd] Bug in subsetting data frame (PR#13515)
[ lots deleted ]
> > Indeed! It is quite surprising that functions are defined
> using ordinary
> > assignment, but function lookup is different from normal variable
> > evaluation, e.g. that after c<-4, c(10) is different from
> (c)(10). Was this
> > inspired by some other language? I don't think it's done
> this way in any
> > other language I can think of....
> I think originally there was no difference, and it caused the obvious
> trouble when people used variable names like t and c other short
> function names, so this was added. I don't remember whether the
> different lookup rules showed up first in R or S.
>
> Duncan Murdoch
Splus 3.4 (July 1996, based on SV3 dated "Apr 30 09:54:11 EDT 1992")
distinguished function vs. non-function lookups. E.g.,
> f <- function(a,b,c) c(a,b,c)
> f(11,12,13)
[1] 11 12 13
Warning messages:
looking for function "c", ignored local non-function in: f(11, 12,
13)
I don't have easy access to any older version of S+. Somewhere along
the line we dropped the warning.
Bill Dunlap
TIBCO Software Inc - Spotfire Division
wdunlap tibco.com
> ______________________________________________
> 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
