Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> Notice also that in
>
> lapply(1:4,function(i) F(i))
>
> it would be pretty weird if lapply would behave differently depending
> on the name of formal arguments of the function, i.e. if
>
> lapply(1:4,function(meep) F(meep))
>
> gave a different result. And f() depends on
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Peter Dalgaard
wrote:
> Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>
>> Note that
>>
>> rm(i)
>> for(j in 1:4) F(j)
>>
>> raises an error due to scoping issues.
>
> Yes. This has nothing to do with lazy evaluation, and everything to do with
> scoping: f is not defined in the scop
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
Note that
rm(i)
for(j in 1:4) F(j)
raises an error due to scoping issues.
Yes. This has nothing to do with lazy evaluation, and everything to do
with scoping: f is not defined in the scope of F, so does not know about
its variables (nor those in the implicit loop o
Note that
rm(i)
for(j in 1:4) F(j)
raises an error due to scoping issues.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:02 PM, wrote:
> I've been going back to old difficult R-list "evaluation" emails that I save
> in order to understand evaluation better and below still confuses me. Could
> someone explain why
I've been going back to old difficult R-list "evaluation" emails that I
save in order to understand evaluation better and below still confuses
me. Could someone explain why A) works and B) doesn't. A variant of
below is in the Pat's Inferno book also but I'm still not clear on what
is happeni
5 matches
Mail list logo
