This was documented in [1] forever ago. I would not miss it if a future version of R chose to remove those variables.
[1] The R Inferno, 8.1.32 On December 13, 2024 11:21:13 AM PST, ivo welch <ivo.we...@ucla.edu> wrote: >isn't this still a little R buglet? I have overwritten T (even if my >schuld [franconian], it is not that uncommon an error, because T is also a >common abbreviation for the end of a time series; namespace pollution in R >can be quite annoying, even though I understand that it is convenient in >interactive mode). Nevertheless, I am passing into mean() a positive >number for na.rm, and by definition, a positive number still means TRUE. > besides, sd() and mean() should probably treat this similarly, anyway. I >do see the argument that functions cannot be proof against redefinitions of >all sorts of objects that they can use. more philosophically, some >variables should not be overwritable, or at least trigger a warning. > >As Dante wrote, Abandon all hope ye who enter R. > >-- >Ivo Welch (ivo.we...@ucla.edu) > > [[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 https://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html >and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. ______________________________________________ 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 https://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
