On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:13 PM, R. Michael Weylandt
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Presumably because the i <= 4 has to be re-evaluated at the start of
> each iteration of the while-loop which implicitly force()s it?
>
> Though, I don't know if it might not be a bad idea to put an implicit
> force() in the internal code for `for` to prevent these sorts of
> things. I can't immediately think of a scenario where this sort of
> behavior would be useful. It might also simplify the internals to pass
> a value rather than what I presume is actually a promise (but I
> haven't looked yet and I'm still not in a position to verify)
It does not appear to be a promise. Using a C routine that returns
TRUE for a promise and FALSE otherwise:
> # test ispromise
>
> # is a promise
> delayedAssign("a", x+1)
> .Call("ispromise", "a", .GlobalEnv)
[1] TRUE
>
> # not a promise
> xx <- 3
> .Call("ispromise", "xx", .GlobalEnv)
[1] FALSE
>
> # seems index of for is not a promise
> #
> for(i in 1:3) print(.Call("ispromise", "i", .GlobalEnv))
[1] FALSE
[1] FALSE
[1] FALSE
--
Statistics & Software Consulting
GKX Group, GKX Associates Inc.
tel: 1-877-GKX-GROUP
email: ggrothendieck at gmail.com
______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
