> On 24 Feb 2015, at 19:53 , Hadley Wickham wrote:
>
> do.call(sna::snaFunName, args = args)
>
> ?
>
I was about to suggest something similar. The key is that the first arg to
do.call is not necessarily a text string; it can be the actual function object.
So something along the lines of
n
do.call(sna::snaFunName, args = args)
?
Hadley
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Skye Bender-deMoll
wrote:
> Dear R-devel
>
> I have a function in a package that essentially provides a wrapper for a
> group of functions in another Suggested package (it sets appropriate
> defaults for the context
First, a clarification of terminology: a package can be loaded and
attached, or loaded and not attached. It can't be attached and not loaded.
To get the function from a package by name, you could do something like:
getExportedValue("sna", snaFunName)
where snaFunName is a string containing the
Dear R-devel
I have a function in a package that essentially provides a wrapper for a
group of functions in another Suggested package (it sets appropriate
defaults for the context, transforms output, etc). I've implemented
this by verifying that the package was loaded with
require(sna)
and
> On Feb 24, 2015, at 10:50 AM, wrote:
>
> The documentation is not specific enough on the indented semantics in
> this situation to consider this a bug. The original R-level
> implementation of lapply was
>
>lapply <- function(X, FUN, ...) {
>FUN <- match.fun(FUN)
>if (!is.
The documentation is not specific enough on the indented semantics in
this situation to consider this a bug. The original R-level
implementation of lapply was
lapply <- function(X, FUN, ...) {
FUN <- match.fun(FUN)
if (!is.list(X))
X <- as.list(X)
rval <- vecto
From: Daniel Kaschek
> ... When I evaluate this list of functions by
> another lapply/sapply, I get an unexpected result: all values coincide.
> However, when I uncomment the print(), it works as expected. Is this a
> bug or a feature?
>
> conditions <- 1:4
> test <- lapply(conditions, function(m
On Mo, 2015-02-23 at 16:54 -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> This is a feature: it allows you to have arguments that are never
> evaluated, because they are never used, or defaults that depend on
> things that are calculated within the function.
I haven't thought about the thing with the default arg
