Re: [R] setAs vs setIs

2008-03-17 Thread Martin Maechler
> "CG" == Christophe Genolini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > on Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:42:09 +0100 writes: CG> I works, great ! CG> So using your code, we can define 'as','as<-' and 'is' with setIt. Is CG> there still any interest using setAs ? Well, ?setIs contains >> This fun

Re: [R] setAs vs setIs

2008-03-17 Thread Christophe Genolini
I works, great ! So using your code, we can define 'as','as<-' and 'is' with setIt. Is there still any interest using setAs ? Christophe > > It seems to me your problem here is simply that you did not define a > coerce cal in setIs, so it does not know how to turn a C object into a > B object,

Re: [R] setAs vs setIs

2008-03-16 Thread Charilaos Skiadas
On Mar 16, 2008, at 8:12 PM, Christophe Genolini wrote: > Hi the list > > I am fighting with the twins setAs and setIs... > > Here are some questions and comments (comments to myself but that > migth > be wrong, it is why I am posting them) > 1. Very surprising : using setIs define 'is', 'as<-'

[R] setAs vs setIs

2008-03-16 Thread Christophe Genolini
Hi the list I am fighting with the twins setAs and setIs... Here are some questions and comments (comments to myself but that migth be wrong, it is why I am posting them) 1. Very surprising : using setIs define 'is', 'as<-' but not 'as' ??? 2. Using setAs define 'as', 'as<-' but not 'is'... What