> On 26 Jun 2017, at 21:56 , Martin Maechler wrote:
>
>
> Indeed, the fix I've committed reverts almost to the previous
> first version of within.data.frame (which is from Peter
> Dalgaard, for those who don't know).
>
Great foresight on my part there, eh? ;-)
-p
--
Peter Dalgaard, Profe
> "PD" == Peter Dalgaard
> on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 20:12:38 +0200 writes:
>> On 26 Jun 2017, at 19:04 , Martin Maechler
>> wrote:
>>
>>> peter dalgaard on Mon, 26 Jun
>>> 2017 13:43:28 +0200 writes:
>>
>>> This seems to be due to changes made by Mar
> On 26 Jun 2017, at 19:04 , Martin Maechler wrote:
>
>> peter dalgaard
>>on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 13:43:28 +0200 writes:
>
>> This seems to be due to changes made by Martin Maechler in
>> 2008. Presumably this fixed something, but it escapes my
>> memory.
>
> Yes: The change set (svn
> peter dalgaard
> on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 13:43:28 +0200 writes:
> This seems to be due to changes made by Martin Maechler in
> 2008. Presumably this fixed something, but it escapes my
> memory.
Yes: The change set (svn -c46441) also contains the following NEWS entry
BUG F
This seems to be due to changes made by Martin Maechler in 2008. Presumably
this fixed something, but it escapes my memory.
However, it seems to have broken the equivalence between within.list and
within.data.frame, so now
within.list <- within.data.frame
does not suffice.
The crux of the mat
The behaviour of within() with list input changes if you delete 2 or more
variables, compared to deleting one:
l <- list(x=1, y=2, z=3)
within(l,
{
rm(z)
})
#$x
#[1] 1
#
#$y
#[1] 2
within(l, {
rm(y)
rm(z)
})
#$x
#[1] 1
#
#$y
#NULL
#
#$z
#NULL
When 2 or more variables are deleted,
