Thank you for your helpful reply, which clarified several issues for me.
-s
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, John Chambers wrote:
It's unclear from your mail what you actually tried to do, but here are
a few comments that may be relevant.
The syntactic form for() is indeed implemented as a primitive
function. Some primitives can and are used as generic functions, but
`for` is no
Stavros Macrakis writes:
> Inspired by Rudolf Biczok's query of Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:25 AM, I
> tried to implement iteration in a generic way using S4. (Though I am
> admittedly still struggling with learning S4.)
>
>> setClass("foo",representation(bar="list"))
> [1] "foo"
>> x<-new("foo",bar=l
It's unclear from your mail what you actually tried to do, but here are
a few comments that may be relevant.
The syntactic form for() is indeed implemented as a primitive
function. Some primitives can and are used as generic functions, but
`for` is not currently one of them.
> setGeneric("f
Inspired by Rudolf Biczok's query of Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:25 AM, I
tried to implement iteration in a generic way using S4. (Though I am
admittedly still struggling with learning S4.)
> setClass("foo",representation(bar="list"))
[1] "foo"
> x<-new("foo",bar=list(1,2,3))
Given this, I would not e
