Hi, Charlotte:
I'm with Henrik: I don't know the global consequences of "print
= function (...) base::print (...)", but I wouldn't do it.
Writing "print.foo (x, ...)" may violate your sense of
aesthetics, but I avoid it. I've done things like that in the past,
then changed th
Hi.
Here are some guidelines that I find useful:
- Avoid changing the arguments of generic functions provided by the
default R packages, especially the ones in base. Just, accept those
arguments. If there are extra arguments you don't like, you can
always add '...' to your method and they will
Hi Spencer,
Sorry, I wasn't very clear in my initial post.
The function print.foo (myfoo, ...) won't pass R check (unless one
overwrites print first).
One has to write print.foo (x, ...), which in my personal opinion, can
be problematic.
In my oosp package, I have overwritten print (along with a
Hi, Charlotte:
I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean writing something like
"print.foo (myfoo, ...)", this is relatively benign I suppose, but I
avoid it where feasible. On multiple occasions, I've pushed
collaborators and even maintainers of other packages to change this or
allow
Hi all,
Legend has it, that polite R programmers don't overwrite, say, the
print function.
However, this seems quite un-Darwinian to me (especially given that I
don't want to call all my arguments x and y).
I might want a function print.foo (myfoo, ...).
So I decided to be very impolite (in one o
