On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 12:55 -0800, Seth Falcon wrote:
> I would expect setGeneric to create a new generic function and
> nuke/mask
> methods associated with the generic that it replaces.
I tried a test in R 2.7.1, and that is the behavior. I think it would
be worthwhile to document it in ?setGene
On 1/19/10 11:19 AM, Ross Boylan wrote:
If files that were read in later in the sequence extended an existing
generic, I omitted the setGeneric().
I had to resequence the order in which the files were read to avoid some
"undefined slot classes" warnings. The resequencing created other
problems,
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 10:05 -0800, Seth Falcon wrote:
> > This came up because of some issues with the sequencing of code in
> my
> > package. Adding duplicate setGeneric's seems like the smallest, and
> > therefore safest, change if the duplication is not a problem.
>
> I'm not sure of the answe
On 1/19/10 10:01 AM, Ross Boylan wrote:
Is it safe to call setGeneric twice, assuming some setMethod's for the
target function occur in between? By "safe" I mean that all the
setMethod's remain in effect, and the 2nd call is, effectively, a no-op.
?setGeneric says nothing explicit about this be
Is it safe to call setGeneric twice, assuming some setMethod's for the
target function occur in between? By "safe" I mean that all the
setMethod's remain in effect, and the 2nd call is, effectively, a no-op.
?setGeneric says nothing explicit about this behavior that I can see.
It does say that if
