Skip to content

Arguments of 'transform'

2 messages · Bill Venables, John Fox

#
Hi John,

Unfortunately I don't think that will fix it because of partial matching.

(That would be OK if the argument sequence were reversed to:

	function(..., x.)

since partial matching does not occur with arguments coming after ..., but it would break ALL existing code.)

Bill.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Fox [mailto:jfox at mcmaster.ca] 
Sent: Sunday, 12 February 2006 1:39 AM
To: 'Peter Dalgaard'; Venables, Bill (CMIS, Cleveland)
Cc: r-devel at stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: RE: [Rd] Arguments of 'transform'


Dear Peter and Bill,

How about changing the current "x argument to something like "x."? That
should make the problem that Bill points out less likely and still be
backwards compatible with using "x" in the call to transform().

Regards,
 John

--------------------------------
John Fox
Department of Sociology
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario
Canada L8S 4M4
905-525-9140x23604
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox 
--------------------------------
#
Dear Bill,

I didn't realize that "x." would be partially matched by "x" when there was
a first (unnamed) argument in the function call -- but I see the error now.

Thanks,
 John

--------------------------------
John Fox
Department of Sociology
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario
Canada L8S 4M4
905-525-9140x23604
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox 
--------------------------------