Lexical scoping is not what I expect
On Jun 30, 2013, at 5:35 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 13-06-29 11:58 PM, Greg Snow wrote:
If you want to write really confusing code it is possible to do: `1` <- 2 `1` + 1 and things like that, but it is probably a good idea not to.
This is actually pretty simple, as the White Knight could tell you. `1` is what the name of 2 is called. The name really is "2". It's called "two", but that's only what it's called. It really is two. Duncan Murdoch
This fortune nominee keeps getting stronger.
David. > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Rolf Turner <rolf.turner at xtra.co.nz> wrote: >> >>> On 29/06/13 02:54, John Fox wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Duncan and Steve, >>>> >>>> Since Steve's example raises it, I've never understood why it's legal to >>>> change the built-in global "constants" in R, including T and F. That just >>>> seems to me to set a trap for users. Why not treat these as reserved >>>> symbols, like TRUE, Inf, etc.? >>>> >>> >>> I rather enjoy being able to set >>> >>> pi <- 3 >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> cheers, >>> >>> Rolf Turner >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**________________ >>> R-help at r-project.org mailing list >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/**listinfo/r-help<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help> >>> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/** >>> posting-guide.html <http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html> >>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. >>> >> >> >> > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. David Winsemius Alameda, CA, USA