If I understand properly, you want '<-' to be a generic function, which it currently isn't. There may be a way to fake that (I can't think of any).
But I'm wondering if you should rethink what you want. The only reason that I can think of that you would want to change '<-' is because of some extra side effect that you want to happen. That is not in the spirit of R. Patrick Burns patr...@burns-stat.com +44 (0)20 8525 0696 http://www.burns-stat.com (home of "The R Inferno" and "A Guide for the Unwilling S User") Yi Zhang wrote:
i was sort-of joking, though it's a real option if you want it. but seriously, there's no reason for the &%#* lamenting: x <- 1 '<-' = function(x,y) 0 x <- 2 # 0 .Primitive('<-')(x,2) x # 2 base::'<-'(x, 3) x # 3 base::'<-'('<-', base::'<-') x <- 4 x # 4 vQI'm still not sure if this can help solve my problem. If I want to overwrite the `<-` operator for a particular type of objects, but preserve its effect for other regular objects (in other words, if I do x<-5 with my new <-, x will be 5 and nothing strange happens), then what should I put in the [ ] below? old <- `<-` old(`<-`, function(x, value){ if (value is my type) do something [ ] # to bind the object value to symbol x: no matter what you do here, the binding/assignment is local within this function?! }) Hope I have made myself clear. Thanks,
______________________________________________ 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.
