surprising behaviour of names<-
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, William Dunlap wrote:
Would it make anyone any happier if the manual said that the replacement functions should not be called in the form xNew <- `func<-` (xOld, value) and should only be used as func(xToBeChanged) <- value ?
That was my reaction, too. The discussion reminded me of old comp.lang.c threads about i=i++ and similar issues. The anomalies in
xNew <- `func<-` (xOld, value)
arise precisely because it isn't supposed to be used that way.
My other proposal for 'rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty' has been the evaluation order of the *apply family (eg, does apply process the columns left to right, or right to left, or however it feels like?).
-thomas
Thomas Lumley Assoc. Professor, Biostatistics
tlumley at u.washington.edu University of Washington, Seattle