Yes, Ivan, obviously someone can try out a change and check if it causes
problems.
And although I would think the majority of delayed execution eventually
either is never invoked or is done as you describe using internal functions
in trees, I suspect there exist some that do not.
For example, I c
I think if you step back, you can ask what the purpose of an error message
is and who designs it.
Is the message for the developer or others on their team or something an
end-user knowing nothing about R will see.
This reminds me a bit of legal mumbo jumbo that turns many reading it off as
it kee
I am probably mistaken but it looks to me like the design of much of the
data.frame infrastructure not only does not insist you give columns names, but
even has all kinds of options such as check.names and fix.empty.names
https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/base/versions/3.6.2/topics/data.fr
I am not personally for or against changes to the R main language but do find
that too many people keep wanting to change R so it should be like some other
language. Many features would be nice, especially if they do not break existing
code, but the time and effort and other overheads need to be
I am wondering what the specific need for this is or is it just an exercise?
Where does it matter if a chunk of code assigns using "<-" beforehand or "->"
after hand, or for that matter assigns indirectly without a symbol?
And whatever you come up with, will it also support the global assignment
Adrian,
That is indeed a specialized need albeit not necessarily one that cannot be
done by requiring an alternate way of typing a formula that avoids being
something the parser sees as needed to do at that level.
In this case, my other questions become moot as I assume the global assignment
Duncan, Adrian and all,
I decided to look a bit at how various operators are seen by typeof() in light
of this discussion and it seems there are quite a few categories as shown below
and I suspect more exist. R, like many languages was not initially designed to
have some object-oriented aspects
I suggest there is actually quite a lot to know about piping, albeit you can
use it fine while knowing little.
For those who can happily write complex lines of code containing nested
function calls and never have to explain it to anyone, feel free. I can do that
and sometimes months later I onl
Unfortunately, as has been noted, some changes require many parties to change
at once and can cause huge problems when an unchanged part is reached. If
integers are a fixed size, an implementation can be straightforward and you can
patch in libraries and parts already used and tested and in lang
Why would a design made by perhaps different people at different times have to
be consistent?
Why complicate a simple design meant to be used in 2-D objects to also handle
other things?
It is a bit like asking why for a vector you cannot use the same verb to
measure length as in one sense a
It can be informative to look at what the actual functions being discussed do.
Dim is an internal, meaning written in some variant of C, perhaps:
> dim
function (x) .Primitive("dim")
The function nrow, in my distribution, actually just calls dim() and throws
away one dimension:
> nrow
functio
Terry,
If I understand you, this is a problem anytime you include more than one
function with the same name and the latest masks all others. It is not only
a problem with the tidyverse, albeit that is an example of bringing in quite
a few functions from many packages at once.
I wonder if the foll
12 matches
Mail list logo
