Friedrich Leisch <Friedrich.Leisch@ci.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
Hmm, I asked Torsten to mail the bug report ... I first thought along your lines and I would agree if I pass ``date'' as default, but we have ``date()'' as default argument which is the return value of the function, no? IMO evaluating the default expression comes down to evaluating ``date <- date()'' which is perfectly legal ... BTW, BB can do it: S> foo <- function(date=date()) cat(date, "\n") S> foo() Fri Mar 3 09:49:20 MET 2000 Warning messages: looking for function "date", ignored local non-function in: foo()
However,
foo <- function(date=date) date foo()
Error in foo(): Recursive occurrence of default argument "date" Dumped So S-plus only works by assuming that the local variable is not a function (*before* evaluating its default)! R is being cleaner and more consistent..
O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3 c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._