> "Seth" == Seth Falcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 07:20:17 -0800 writes:
Seth> On 7 Feb 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> The solution has been agreed to be changing the internal
>> representation of S4 objects making them a new SEXP (basic R
>> "type")
In fact there is a heuristic test that is cheap and reasonably
reliable. The class attribute generated for S4 objects itself has an
attribute, "package". A C-level test for the existence of that
attribute is cheap enough, I would think, that most anti-S4 users
wouldn't notice it in match(), c
On 7 Feb 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The solution has been agreed to be changing the internal
> representation of S4 objects making them a new SEXP (basic R
> "type"); and as Brian alludes to, the problem is that those in
> R-core that want to and are able to do this didn't have the time
> fo
> "BDR" == Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Mon, 6 Feb 2006 19:44:50 + (GMT) writes:
BDR> An S4 object is just a list with attributes, so a
BDR> vector type. match() works with all vector types
BDR> including lists, as you found out (or could have read).
yes
An S4 object is just a list with attributes, so a vector type. match()
works with all vector types including lists, as you found out (or could
have read).
If in the future those proposing it do re-implement an S4 object as an new
SEXP then this will change, but for now the cost of detecting ob
If one accidentally calls match(x, obj), where obj is any S4 instance,
the result is NA.
I was expecting an error because, in general, if a match method is not
defined for a particular S4 class, I don't know what a reasonable
default could be. Specifically, here's what I see
setClass("FOO", re
