On 11/11/2008 5:00 AM, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
Radford Neal is also complaining on his blog (http://radfordneal.wordpress.com/) about what he thinks are design flaws in R. Why don't you two get together and design a good substitute without any flaws? Or is that too hard? ;-)
I agree with Radford (who was complaining about surprising behaviour with dropped dimensions in array indexing, and the result of 1:n when n is zero), but I don't particularly like his solution. It seems to me that introducing a new operator that returns "a sequence from 1 up to n" is a good idea, but having a new data type is not: there is too much legacy code that would not be able to handle it. So we need some other way to handle the array indexing problem, such as ways to detect unintentional omissions of "drop=FALSE", if we want to handle it.
Duncan Murdoch ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org 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.
