Robert Gentleman wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 13/11/2009 7:26 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
On 13/11/2009 6:39 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
Note that one should use inherits = FALSE argument on
On 11/16/2009 12:07 PM, Robert Gentleman wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 13/11/2009 7:26 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
On 13/11/2009 6:39 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
Note that one should use in
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 13/11/2009 7:26 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Duncan Murdoch
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13/11/2009 6:39 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
Note that one should use inherits = FALSE argument on g
On 13/11/2009 7:26 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 13/11/2009 6:39 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
Note that one should use inherits = FALSE argument on get and exists
to avoid returning objects from the parent, the parent of the parent,
et
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 13/11/2009 6:39 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>
>> Note that one should use inherits = FALSE argument on get and exists
>> to avoid returning objects from the parent, the parent of the parent,
>> etc.
>
> I disagree. Normally you would
On 13/11/2009 6:39 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
Note that one should use inherits = FALSE argument on get and exists
to avoid returning objects from the parent, the parent of the parent,
etc.
I disagree. Normally you would want to receive those objects. If you
didn't, why didn't you set the
Note that one should use inherits = FALSE argument on get and exists
to avoid returning objects from the parent, the parent of the parent,
etc.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 11/13/2009 2:03 PM, Trishank Karthik Kuppusamy wrote:
>>
>> Greetings everyone,
>>
>> I have
On 11/13/2009 3:03 PM, Trishank Karthik Kuppusamy wrote:
On Nov 13, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
Inconsistent with what happens for lists:
> x <- list()
> x$b
NULL
and attributes:
> attr(x, "b")
NULL
Ah, I see. I would claim that the same argument for default safety should apply
Hello Henrik,
On Nov 13, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
> If you develop your own code you can add your own behavior by
> "extending" the environment class. I put "extending" in quotation
> marks, because 'environment' is one of few classes you should *not*
> extend from in the regula
If you develop your own code you can add your own behavior by
"extending" the environment class. I put "extending" in quotation
marks, because 'environment' is one of few classes you should *not*
extend from in the regular S3 (and S4?) sense, at least that was the
case a few years ago. You can se
On Nov 13, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> Inconsistent with what happens for lists:
>
> > x <- list()
> > x$b
> NULL
>
> and attributes:
>
> > attr(x, "b")
> NULL
Ah, I see. I would claim that the same argument for default safety should apply
here too.
> It is already a little st
On 11/13/2009 2:39 PM, Trishank Karthik Kuppusamy wrote:
Hello Duncan,
Thanks for your reply.
On Nov 13, 2009, at 2:27 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
You get the same behaviour when asking for a nonexistent element of a list, or
a nonexistent attribute. If you want stricter checking, don't use
Hello Duncan,
Thanks for your reply.
On Nov 13, 2009, at 2:27 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> You get the same behaviour when asking for a nonexistent element of a list,
> or a nonexistent attribute. If you want stricter checking, don't use $, use
> get():
>
> > get("b", e)
> Error in get("b",
On 11/13/2009 2:03 PM, Trishank Karthik Kuppusamy wrote:
Greetings everyone,
I have a question about the default behaviour of a missing entry in an
environment.
Let us look at the following sequence of R statements:
e <- new.env()
e$a <- 1
e$a
[1] 1
e$b
NULL
I think I understand the lo
Greetings everyone,
I have a question about the default behaviour of a missing entry in an
environment.
Let us look at the following sequence of R statements:
> e <- new.env()
> e$a <- 1
> e$a
[1] 1
> e$b
NULL
>
I think I understand the logic for returning NULL to a missing entry in an
enviro
15 matches
Mail list logo
