>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:03:29 -0400, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think there are mixed feelings about whether it is a feature or a
> misfeature, but it's a very old property of the S language.
Oh well, understood. :)
- Allen S. Rout
_
On 6/30/2006 10:49 AM, Allen S. Rout wrote:
> Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> - It breaks the partial argument matching, e.g.
>>
>> foo1(siz = 3)
>>
>> would act just like the above, instead of like
>>
>> foo1(size = 3)
>
>
> Is this viewed as a feature? Having ( dataset=3 ) f
Here is an approach. fn.dots takes a character string, fn.name, such as
a function name and a named list, dots. If fn.name is "f", say, then
it returns all components of dots whose name is of the form f.somestring
removing the f. prefix as well as components containing unprefixed
strings. It woul
Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - It breaks the partial argument matching, e.g.
>
> foo1(siz = 3)
>
> would act just like the above, instead of like
>
> foo1(size = 3)
Is this viewed as a feature? Having ( dataset=3 ) foul the namespace
for d, da, dat, data, etc... sounds mise
On 6/30/2006 2:30 AM, Eric Lecoutre wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> I have often asked myself such question and often
> come back to the following additional options:
>
> (4) Use '...' and ensure encapsulated functions/calls (foo2 and foo3) also
> have '...' within their arguments. There is no problem to
Hi Ben,
I have often asked myself such question and often
come back to the following additional options:
(4) Use '...' and ensure encapsulated functions/calls (foo2 and foo3) also
have '...' within their arguments. There is no problem to call 3dspehre with
a list of arguments that include both
On 6/29/2006 12:53 PM, Ben Bolker wrote:
> I have a general style question about R coding.
>
>Suppose I'm writing a function (foo1) that calls other functions
> (foo2, foo3, ...) which have complicated argument
> lists (e.g. optim(), plot()), _and_
> I may be calling several different func
