Romain Francois wrote:
> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>
> That is an issue. I guess I will fall back on what the parser says and
> infer on the scoping. Within the lines below, mean would be different
> each time
>
> mean( 1:10 )
> lapply( 1:10, mean)
> mean <- (1+4) / 2
> lapply( list( mean, median), function( f ) f( 1:10) )
> { mean <- median; mean( 1:10 ) }
>
>> So if you've got high standards, it's probably quite hard. On the
>> other hand, if you're willing to accept the usual sort of errors that
>> syntax highlighters make, it's not so bad, but not trivial.
>
it would be good to know what you mean by 'errors'. syntax highlighters
are, in principle, *syntax* highlighters. in the example above, the
first and sixth occurrences of 'mean' are in the operator position, the
others are not -- would it be *syntactically* inappropriate to
color-code the former in one way, and the latter in another? why should
a *syntax* highlighter care about what's the object referred to by
'mean' in this or other context?
otherwise, it would certainly be fun to have a semantic highlighter for r.
(..)
>
>
>> (I'd guess it'll be fast enough: Brian Ripley reported that all the R
>> code he wrote for conversions in R-devel was faster than the Perl
>> code it was replacing.)
the 'benchmark' you are talking about is only as good as the perl
scripts were. i have had a look at a couple of perl scripts in the r
sources, and it seemed like there was quite some space for improvement.
vQ
______________________________________________
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.
