I'm curious about why no one has answered my question below. I
can't imagine it would be because no one knows how to answer, it
must be something basic I am ignorant about. But I have never seen
such a pattern, it seems strange to me that a class with an empty
definition is automatically virtua
PS. All class names were upper-case, I messed up while copying the
code, but it has no effect on the result. Thanks for help.
--Hun
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:28:37 +0100 "Hun S. Tesatte"
wrote:
>Dear R-ers,
>
>I don't understand the following, maybe someon
Dear R-ers,
I don't understand the following, maybe someone will help me
explain:
> setClasss('A')
[1] "A"
> new('a')
Error in new("a") :
trying to generate an object from a virtual class ("a")
> setClass('b', contains='a')
[1] "b"
> new('b')
An object of class “b”
In what way is B more co
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:13:27 +0100 Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
>hunsynte...@hush.com wrote:
>> Dear R-ers,
>>
>> While browsing the R sources, I found the following piece of
>code
>> in src\main\memory.c:
>>
>> static void reset_pp_stack(void *data)
>> {
>> R_size_t *poldpps = data;
>> R_PP
4 matches
Mail list logo
