Well, the benefit lies in the ability to pass along arguments via `...` to
more than one recipient that use *identical argument names* and/or when
these recipients are not necessarily located on the same calling stack
layer.
I'm *not* after a *general* change in the way arguments are
dispatched/fu
I think I understand what you're saying now, but I'm still kind of missing
the benefit from the approach.
As far as I can tell just giving foo formals for the arguments you want it
to catch gives you the end result you want, doesn't it?
And if the generic has ... in it, you can (if you're very ca
Hi Duncan,
Many thanks (yet again).
With the hint given by your earlier email (viz that currently loadNamespace
expects a 3rd component called name in the list that is used for the
versionCheck argument) I had another look at what was going on with my toy
examples yesterday evening. I'm still wo
Hi Gabriel,
and thanks for answering. I'm basically just trying to find a way to use
the power of `...` in more complex scenarios and I'm well aware that this
might not be the best approach ;-)
Regarding your actual question:
"Are you suggesting methods be dispatched based on the *contents* of ..
On 27 November 2014 at 11:23, Paul Gilbert wrote:
| On 14-11-26 05:49 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
| > On 26/11/2014, 1:45 PM, Paul Gilbert wrote:
| >> Wishlist: what I would really like is R CMD check --run-dontrun pkg
| >
| > We have that in R-devel, so everyone will have it next April, but there
Janko,
I'm not entirely sure I understand your proposal. Are you suggesting
methods be dispatched based on the *contents* of ... (ie which arguments
are in there)? This seems like it would be pretty different from how
dispatch behaves now, which is entirely class based.
Even the dispatching based
Dear List,
I'm currently investigating if the argument dispatch mechanism based on
`...` could somehow be "generalized" to scenarios that involve `r`
recipients located across `c` calling stack layers *and* combined with the
S4 method mechanism (for those interested see
http://stackoverflow.com/qu
On 14-11-26 05:49 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 26/11/2014, 1:45 PM, Paul Gilbert wrote:
Is there a good strategy for testing examples which should not be run by
default? For instance, I have examples which get data from the Internet.
If I wrap them in try() then they can be skipped if the Inte
On 26/11/2014, 8:29 PM, Geoff Lee wrote:
> Hi Duncan
>
> The difference is that in your call to loadNamespace, the versionCheck list
> has 3 components (name, op and version), whereas the documentation only
> mentions 2 (op and version).
> loadNamespace 'works' for me provided I add a third compon
dear all,
I recently came across the following issue and I was not sure whether it is
intentionally or not:
using p.adjust to adjust p-values for multiple hypothesis testing using the
method from Benjamini and Hochberg removes all NA values from the input vector
and does not account for them in
10 matches
Mail list logo
