Ah yes. I should have checked the details more finely. I come from a
programming background in a different language, and had the thought that
generic functions would work much like function overloading.
--
View this message in context:
http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/S4-Method-Signatures-tp2525018
> "DS" == Dario Strbenac
> on Fri, 3 Sep 2010 12:00:14 +1000 (EST) writes:
DS> Hello,
DS> If the signature of a method defines which generic it implements then
I'm confused about why this minimal example I invented won't work :
very short answer:
if(FALSE) { 0 == 1 }
Ah, nevermind. I realised you could have function(...) as the function
signature in the setGeneric call.
--
View this message in context:
http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/S4-Method-Signatures-tp2525018p2525216.html
Sent from the R devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hello,
If the signature of a method defines which generic it implements then I'm
confused about why this minimal example I invented won't work :
setGeneric("myFun", function(rs, ...){standardGeneric("myFun")})
setGeneric("myFun", function(cs, ...){standardGeneric("myFun")})
setMethod("myFun", "
