Martin Morgan wrote:
>>> Yes, I know! That is why this code is NOT released to CRAN, and also why
>>> I do NOT propose it as to John Fox or Jose-Claudio Faria as a patch for
>>> R Commander or Tinn-R, respectively. We are precisely discussing the
>>> problem to find better solutions (the R GUI A
>> Yes, I know! That is why this code is NOT released to CRAN, and also why
>> I do NOT propose it as to John Fox or Jose-Claudio Faria as a patch for
>> R Commander or Tinn-R, respectively. We are precisely discussing the
>> problem to find better solutions (the R GUI API?). For instance, could
On 10/29/2006 8:00 AM, Philippe Grosjean wrote:
> [I cut in this message that becomes very long]
>
> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> [...]
>> And also thanks to Gabor bringing it up: and that's really the solution
>> to this second problem. If you want to do something unusual and don't
>> see a way to
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> On 10/29/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 10/29/2006 8:03 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>> On 10/28/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/28/2006 6:03 PM, Philippe Grosjean wrote:
> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>>
On 10/29/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/29/2006 8:03 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > On 10/28/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 10/28/2006 6:03 PM, Philippe Grosjean wrote:
> >>> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> >>> [...]
> I've just added this function to R
On 10/29/2006 8:03 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> On 10/28/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 10/28/2006 6:03 PM, Philippe Grosjean wrote:
>>> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>>> [...]
I've just added this function to R-devel (to become 2.5.0 next spring):
withVisible <- func
On 10/28/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/28/2006 6:03 PM, Philippe Grosjean wrote:
> > Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> > [...]
> >> I've just added this function to R-devel (to become 2.5.0 next spring):
> >>
> >> withVisible <- function(x) {
> >> x <- substitute(x)
> >> v <
[I cut in this message that becomes very long]
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
[...]
> And also thanks to Gabor bringing it up: and that's really the solution
> to this second problem. If you want to do something unusual and don't
> see a way to do it, ask on R-devel. If the solution you get requires
On 10/29/2006 4:47 AM, Philippe Grosjean wrote:
> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> On 10/28/2006 6:03 PM, Philippe Grosjean wrote:
>>> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>>> [...]
I've just added this function to R-devel (to become 2.5.0 next spring):
withVisible <- function(x) {
x <- substitut
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 10/28/2006 6:03 PM, Philippe Grosjean wrote:
>> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I've just added this function to R-devel (to become 2.5.0 next spring):
>>>
>>> withVisible <- function(x) {
>>> x <- substitute(x)
>>> v <- .Internal(eval.with.vis(x, parent.fram
On 10/28/2006 6:03 PM, Philippe Grosjean wrote:
> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> [...]
>> I've just added this function to R-devel (to become 2.5.0 next spring):
>>
>> withVisible <- function(x) {
>> x <- substitute(x)
>> v <- .Internal(eval.with.vis(x, parent.frame(), baseenv()))
>> v
>> }
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
[...]
> I've just added this function to R-devel (to become 2.5.0 next spring):
>
> withVisible <- function(x) {
> x <- substitute(x)
> v <- .Internal(eval.with.vis(x, parent.frame(), baseenv()))
> v
> }
>
> Luke Tierney suggested simplifying the interface (no
; R Development Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Rd] how to determine if a function's result is invisible
>
> On 10/26/2006 5:26 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > On 10/26/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 10/25/2006 11:02 PM, Gabor Grothendieck
Thanks!
On 10/28/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/26/2006 5:26 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > On 10/26/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 10/25/2006 11:02 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> >>> On 10/25/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On
On 10/26/2006 5:26 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 10/25/2006 11:02 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>> On 10/25/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/25/2006 8:14 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> Suppose we have a fun
On 10/26/2006 7:12 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> Perhaps there could be a set of functions that are made available
> without the promise of future compatibility but with the promise
> that they will change less frequently than if they were not documented
> and if they are changed the changes will
On 10/26/2006 10:29 AM, Philippe Grosjean wrote:
> But, please, do not give credit for "first idea" to someone else on such
> a topic... It is long enough that I fight for better R GUIs (for
> instance, http://www.r-project.org/GUI), that this looks offending to me!
Sorry, I didn't mean to clai
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 10/25/2006 8:14 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > Suppose we have a function such as the following
> >
> > F <- function(f, x) f(x)+1
> >
> > which runs function f and then transforms it. I would like the
> > corresponding function which works the s
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
[...]
> At the last useR meeting, Thomas Baier made an excellent suggestion:
> someone should put together an API specifically for R GUIs. I think
> eval.with.vis would have to be part of such an API; there are dozens of
> other currently undocumented or unavailable func
Perhaps there could be a set of functions that are made available
without the promise of future compatibility but with the promise
that they will change less frequently than if they were not documented
and if they are changed the changes will be highlighted
to make it easier for the users of the AP
On 10/26/2006 6:28 AM, Philippe Grosjean wrote:
>
>> On 10/26/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>>> Actually, there is a way, but it's undocumented (i.e., use at your own
>>> risk). It's the eval.with.vis function. This is an internal function
>
> Yes... and there are three
On 10/26/06, Philippe Grosjean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > On 10/26/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> >> Actually, there is a way, but it's undocumented (i.e., use at your own
> >> risk). It's the eval.with.vis function. This is an internal function
>
> Yes... and the
> On 10/26/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> Actually, there is a way, but it's undocumented (i.e., use at your own
>> risk). It's the eval.with.vis function. This is an internal function
Yes... and there are three problems here:
1) To spot the undocumented function one is
On 10/26/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/25/2006 11:02 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > On 10/25/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 10/25/2006 8:14 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> >>> Suppose we have a function such as the following
> >>>
> >>> F <- functio
On 10/25/2006 11:02 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> On 10/25/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 10/25/2006 8:14 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>> Suppose we have a function such as the following
>>>
>>> F <- function(f, x) f(x)+1
>>>
>>> which runs function f and then transforms it
On 10/25/06, Marc Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 19:16 -0700, Deepayan Sarkar wrote:
> > On 10/25/06, Marc Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 20:14 -0400, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > > > Suppose we have a function such as the following
> >
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 19:16 -0700, Deepayan Sarkar wrote:
> On 10/25/06, Marc Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 20:14 -0400, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > > Suppose we have a function such as the following
> > >
> > > F <- function(f, x) f(x)+1
> > >
> > > which runs fun
On 10/25/06, Marc Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 20:14 -0400, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > Suppose we have a function such as the following
> >
> > F <- function(f, x) f(x)+1
> >
> > which runs function f and then transforms it. I would like the
> > corresponding func
On 10/25/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/25/2006 8:14 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > Suppose we have a function such as the following
> >
> > F <- function(f, x) f(x)+1
> >
> > which runs function f and then transforms it. I would like the
> > corresponding function which
On 10/25/2006 8:14 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> Suppose we have a function such as the following
>
> F <- function(f, x) f(x)+1
>
> which runs function f and then transforms it. I would like the
> corresponding function which works the same except that
> unlike F returns an invisible result i
On 10/25/06, Marc Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 20:14 -0400, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > Suppose we have a function such as the following
> >
> > F <- function(f, x) f(x)+1
> >
> > which runs function f and then transforms it. I would like the
> > corresponding func
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 20:14 -0400, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> Suppose we have a function such as the following
>
> F <- function(f, x) f(x)+1
>
> which runs function f and then transforms it. I would like the
> corresponding function which works the same except that
> unlike F returns an invisi
Suppose we have a function such as the following
F <- function(f, x) f(x)+1
which runs function f and then transforms it. I would like the
corresponding function which works the same except that
unlike F returns an invisible result if and only if f does.
Is there some way of determining whether
33 matches
Mail list logo
