>>>>> Henrik Bengtsson
>>>>> on Sun, 17 Nov 2019 14:31:07 -0800 writes:
> $ R --vanilla R version 3.6.1 (2019-07-05) -- "Action of
> the Toes" Copyright (C) 2019 The R Foundation for
> Statistical Computing Platform: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> (64-bit) ...
>> str(base::`+`)
> function (e1, e2)
>> plus <- structure(base::`+`, class = "plus") str(plus)
> function (e1, e2) - attr(*, "class")= chr "plus"
> ## Hmm ...
>> str(base::`+`)
> function (e1, e2) - attr(*, "class")= chr "plus"
>> class(base::`+`) <- NULL str(base::`+`)
> function (e1, e2)
> ## Hmm ...
>> str(plus)
> function (e1, e2)
> Even without assigning to `plus`, you get this behavior:
> $ R --vanilla
>> structure(base::`+`, class = "plus")
> function (e1, e2) .Primitive("+") attr(,"class") [1]
> "plus"
> # Hmm...
>> str(base::`+`)
> function (e1, e2) - attr(*, "class")= chr "plus"
> Looks to be the case for common (all?) .Primitive
> functions.
No need for 'base::' (who would be crazy enough to redefine `+`?)
nor str() actually:
attr(`+`, "class") <- NULL # (reset)
`+`
structure(`+`, class = "plus")
`+`
is clearly convincing and minimal
> attr(`+`, "class") <- NULL
> `+`
function (e1, e2) .Primitive("+")
> structure(`+`, class = "plus")
function (e1, e2) .Primitive("+")
attr(,"class")
[1] "plus"
> `+`
function (e1, e2) .Primitive("+")
attr(,"class")
[1] "plus"
>
---------------------------------------------------------
> Is this expected?
no. (at least not by 99.999% of R users)
> Should I report this one to Bugzilla?
yes, please.
> /Henrik
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
