mark.braving...@csiro.au wrote:
>
>> The syntax for returning multiple arguments does not strike me as
>> particularly appealing. would it not possible to allow syntax like:
>>
>> f= function() { return( rnorm(10), rnorm(20) ) }
>> (a,d$b) = f()
>>
>>
>
>
> FWIW, my own solution is to
Why? Can you demonstrate any situations where its useful? Despite
having my own facility for this I've found that over the years I
have never used it.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:23 AM, wrote:
> Gentlemen---these are all very clever workarounds, but please forgive me for
> voicing my own opinion
Gentlemen---these are all very clever workarounds, but please forgive me
for voicing my own opinion: IMHO, returning multiple values in a
statistical language should really be part of the language itself. there
should be a standard syntax of some sort, whatever it may be, that everyone
shou
hi gabor: this would be difficult to do. I don't think you want to
read my programs. it would give you an appreciation of what ugly
horror programs end users can write in the beautiful R language ;-).
clearly, one can work around the lack of such a feature.
multiple-return values are syntax su
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:38 AM, ivo welch wrote:
> hi gabor: this would be difficult to do. I don't think you want to
> read my programs. it would give you an appreciation of what ugly
> horror programs end users can write in the beautiful R language ;-).
>
> clearly, one can work around the l
Dear list,
Did the wish for an official API for evaluating expressions while
keeping an eye on the R_Visible flag (see:
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2007-April/045258.html
) lead to something ?
I could not find a sign of it the current (R-2.8.1 and R-2.9-dev) R defines.
Thanks,
L
ivo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Gentlemen---these are all very clever workarounds,
hacks around the lack of a feature
> but please forgive me for voicing my own opinion: IMHO, returning
> multiple values in a statistical language should really be part of the
> language itself.
returning multiple val
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Wacek Kusnierczyk
wrote:
> ivo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Gentlemen---these are all very clever workarounds,
>
> hacks around the lack of a feature
>
>> but please forgive me for voicing my own opinion: IMHO, returning
>> multiple values in a statistical language shoul
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:38 AM, ivo welch wrote:
>
>> hi gabor: this would be difficult to do. I don't think you want to
>> read my programs. it would give you an appreciation of what ugly
>> horror programs end users can write in the beautiful R language ;-).
>>
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>
>> as gabor says in another post, you probably should first show why having
>> multiple value returns would be useful in r. however, i don't think
>> there are good counterarguments anyway, and putting on you the burden of
>> proving a relatively obvious (or not so?) th
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Wacek Kusnierczyk
wrote:
> Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>
>>> as gabor says in another post, you probably should first show why having
>>> multiple value returns would be useful in r. however, i don't think
>>> there are good counterarguments anyway, and putting on
One idea of program design is that users
should be protected against themselves.
It is my experience that users, especially
novices, tend to over-split items rather than
over-clump items. The fact that items are
returned by the same function call would
argue to me that there is a connection betw
Patrick Burns wrote:
One idea of program design is that users
should be protected against themselves.
It is my experience that users, especially
novices, tend to over-split items rather than
over-clump items. The fact that items are
returned by the same function call would
argue to me that ther
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>
> I've provided an argument against it and no one has provided one
> for it. The so-called identical code Ivo showed was not identical
> and, in fact, was flawed.
no, you're wrong. you think of the part where ivo shows what he'd like
to have; the example i was refer
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Wacek Kusnierczyk
wrote:
> Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>
>> I've provided an argument against it and no one has provided one
>> for it. The so-called identical code Ivo showed was not identical
>> and, in fact, was flawed.
>
> no, you're wrong. you think of the part
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>
>> - this still does not allow one to use the names directly, only as
>> L$first etc., with the syntactic and semantic (longer lookup times) penalty;
>>
>
> That's how it should be done. Using the auto split you get many
> variables which is not desirable. it encou
On 07/03/2009 9:51 AM, Laurent Gautier wrote:
Dear list,
Did the wish for an official API for evaluating expressions while
keeping an eye on the R_Visible flag (see:
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2007-April/045258.html
) lead to something ?
I could not find a sign of it the current (
Thomas Petzoldt wrote:
> Patrick Burns wrote:
>> One idea of program design is that users
>> should be protected against themselves.
... and r coherently implements this idea :]
>>
>> It is my experience that users, especially
>> novices, tend to over-split items rather than
>> over-clump items.
Full_Name: Manikandan Narayanan
Version: 2.8.1
OS: Linux
Submission from: (NULL) (155.91.45.231)
Here is an excerpt from qpois help page (?qpois):
The quantile is left continuous: 'qgeom(q, prob)' is the largest
integer x such that P(X <= x) < q.
I think the "qgeom" here should be
19 matches
Mail list logo
