. I guess in this situation
technically "required arguments" means required and referenced arguments.
> f()
Error in f() : argument "x" is missing, with no default
Can anyone shed light on the reasoning for this design choice?
Warm Regards,
Brian Rowe
[1]
http://cran.
l Weylandt"
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Brian Rowe wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Section 4.3.2 of the R language definition [1] states that argument matching
>> to formal arguments is a 3-pass process to match arguments to a function. An
>> error is
strup wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Ben Bolker wrote:
>
>> Brian Rowe muxspace.com> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the lead. Given the example in ?missing though,
>>> wouldn't it be safer to explicitly define a
>>> defaul
If all you care about is emulating static type checking, then you can also
accomplish the same thing with lambda.r using type constraints on function
definitions.
e.g.
> f(m) %::% matrix : matrix
> f(m) %as% { m }
> f(as.data.frame(matrix(rnorm(12),nrow=3)))
Error in UseFunction("f", ...) : No
Another point to consider is that copying someone else's code forces you to
become a maintainer of the copied code. If there are any bug
fixes/enhancements/what-have-you in the original you won't get those updates.
So now you own the copied code and need to consider the cost of the codebase
div
The type constraints in lambda.r make this relatively easy. The idea is to add
a declaration before a function that provides static typing on the function
arguments. The type constraint also specifies the return type, so it would be
straightforward to construct a graph. Where a type variable is
Something that might be of use to you guys is crant
(https://github.com/muxspace/crant), which is a set of scripts to make package
development and testing simpler. With crant you can build out multiple R
instances (release, patch, devel) and then run the build chain against each
one. It's compa
d builds. A proof of concept on AWS connecting to github
or rforge could probably be finished on a six-pack. Speak up if anyone thinks
this would be useful.
On Sep 15, 2013, at 9:58 PM, Yihui Xie wrote:
> I've been watching this thread closely and trying not to chime in,
> because as Br
