Hi all, Bert it's all ok! My disappointments are blame of my expectations and not of R. I started with C and Php and learned to be explicit, 'computer do not to guess what you want', but R do this 'favour' for us. I love work on R and for my previous experiences I not expected this behaviour (again my fault). I read others aspects of manual, but this that I supposed to know (my fault). But ok, we learn with our faults. And this is good! Hadley, thank you for options! Best regards, Mario On 11 Dec 2015 18:30, "Hadley Wickham" <h.wick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Duncan Murdoch > <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/12/2015 1:52 PM, Mario José Marques-Azevedo wrote: > >> > >> Hi Duncan and David, > >> > >> Thank you for explanation. I'm really disappointed with this R > "resource". > >> I think that partial match, mainly in function args, must be optional > and > >> not default. We can have many problems and lost hours find errors (it > >> occur > >> with me). I tried to find a solution to disable partial match, but it > >> seems > >> that is not possible. Program with hacks for this will be sad. > > > > > > Nowadays with smart editors, I agree that partial matching isn't really > > necessary. However, R has been around for 20 years, and lots of existing > > code depends on it. Eventually you'll get to know the quirks of the > > design. > > And if you really dislike this behavour, you can at least warn on it: > > options( > warnPartialMatchArgs = TRUE, > warnPartialMatchAttr = TRUE, > warnPartialMatchDollar = TRUE > ) > > Hadley > > -- > http://had.co.nz/ > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see 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.
