Hi,
Using the latest R-devel under Windows, I've encountered the following
problem when trying to install packages at the prompt:
>R CMD INSTALL d:\inum_0.1-0.tar.gz
* installing to library 'C:\Users\henwin\R\win-library\3.4'
* installing *source* package 'inum' ...
** R
** preparing package f
Hi,
I hope this is the correct list for my question. I found a wired
behaviour of my R installation on the evaluation of anonymous functions.
minimal working example
###
f<-function(x) {
print( 2*x )
}(2)
class(f)
f(3)
f<-function(x) {
print( 2*x )
}(4)(5)
f(6)
###
leads to
###
Hi,
sry for the double posting. I forgot to mention that this example
###
f<-function(x) {
return( 2*x )
}(2)
class(f)
f(3)
f<-function(x) {
return( 2*x )
}(4)(5)
f(6)
###
leads to
##
> f<-function(x) {
+ return( 2*x )
+ }(2)
>
> class(f)
[1] "function"
>
> f(3)
[1] 6
>
> f<-fu
Here is a simplified version of your problem
> { sqrt }(c(2,4,8))
[1] 1.414214 2.00 2.828427
Do you want that to act differently?
Bill Dunlap
TIBCO Software
wdunlap tibco.com
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:10 AM, Wilm Schumacher
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I hope this is the correct list for my questi
Hi,
thx for the reply. Unfortunately that is not a simplified version of the
problem. You have a function, call it and get the result (numeric in,
numeric out in that case). For simplicity lets use the "return" case:
##
foobar<-function(x) { return(sqrt(x)) }(2)
##
which is a function (numeric
You might find it useful to look at what body() shows you for your
example and to think about what return does.
Best,
luke
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Wilm Schumacher wrote:
Hi,
thx for the reply. Unfortunately that is not a simplified version of the
problem. You have a function, call it and get th
Hi,
Am 21.10.2016 um 18:10 schrieb William Dunlap:
Are you saying that
f1 <- function(x) log(x)
f2 <- function(x) { log } (x)
should act differently?
yes. Or more precisely: I would expect that. "Should" implies, that I
want to change something. I just want to understand the behavior (
Are you saying that
f1 <- function(x) log(x)
f2 <- function(x) { log } (x)
should act differently?
Using 'return' complicates the matter, because it affects evaluation, not
parsing.
Bill Dunlap
TIBCO Software
wdunlap tibco.com
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Wilm Schumacher
wrote:
> H
Am 21.10.2016 um 18:10 schrieb William Dunlap:
>
> Are you saying that
f1 <- function(x) log(x)
f2 <- function(x) { log } (x)
should act differently?
yes.
But that would mean that {log} would act differently than log.
I suppose it is a matter of taste, but I say yuck.
As for 'return'
> On 21 Oct 2016, at 19:17 , Wilm Schumacher wrote:
>
> Am 21.10.2016 um 18:10 schrieb William Dunlap:
>> Are you saying that
>>f1 <- function(x) log(x)
>>f2 <- function(x) { log } (x)
>> should act differently?
> yes. Or more precisely: I would expect that. "Should" implies, that I want
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, William Dunlap via R-devel wrote:
Am 21.10.2016 um 18:10 schrieb William Dunlap:
Are you saying that
f1 <- function(x) log(x)
f2 <- function(x) { log } (x)
should act differently?
yes.
But that would mean that {log} would act differently than log.
I suppose it
11 matches
Mail list logo
