On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Peter Dalgaard <p.dalga...@biostat.ku.dk> wrote: > Gabor Grothendieck wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Wacek Kusnierczyk > > th some additional boring pedantry wrt. ?gsubfn, which says: >>> >>> " If 'replacement' is a formula instead of a function then a one >>> line function is created whose body is the right hand side of the >>> formula and whose arguments are the left hand side separated by >>> '+' signs (or any other valid operator). The environment of the >>> function is the environment of the formula. If the arguments are >>> omitted then the free variables found on the right hand side are >>> used in the order encountered. " >>> >>> to my little mind, all of 'paste', 'rep', 'nchar', and 'x' in the >>> example above are *free variables* on the right of the formula. you >> >> The first three are functions, not variables. > > They are still free variables, subject to the same rules of variable lookup. > Wacek is right: The RHS is scanned recursively for objects of mode "name" > _except_ when they appear as function names (i.e. if subexpression e is mode > "call", then forget e[[1]] and look at the arguments in as.list(e)[-1]. Not > sure if this also happens if e[[1]] is not a name, e.g. in f(a)(b), do you > get both a and b or just b?) > > He is also right that it is pedantry...
Certainly that is one interpretation although from context it seems an unlikely one since from that viewpoint +, [ and, in fact, everything is a variable. ______________________________________________ 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.
