get() versus getAnywhere()
On 18/04/2009 8:47 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
On 17/04/2009, at 10:21 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
Benjamin Tyner wrote:
Many thanks Duncan. Perhaps this merits a more explicit note in the documentation?
The quote I gave is from the documentation. How could it be more explicit?
This is unfortunately typical of the attitude of R-core people toward the documentation. ``It's clear.'' they say. ``It's explicit.'' Clear and explicit once you *know* what it's saying. Not before, but.
But I didn't say that. I asked how to make it more explicit.
In this case the documentation is quite opaque to me, and I would suspect to a good many like me.
What change would make it less opaque? Duncan Murdoch Now that you have made it *genuinely* explicit,
I can understand what the documentation is saying. Prior to that I wouldn't have had a prayer of guessing that get() would sometimes find things that getAnywhere() would not find. Moreover, if getAnywhere() does not really mean ``get *anywhere*'' then its name is misleading. Surely it wouldn't be too tough to modify getAnywhere() so that it really got anywhere. E.g. get it to call get() when it can't find an object with a given name? cheers, Rolf ###################################################################### Attention: This e-mail message is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please delete the message and notify the sender. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author. This e-mail has been scanned and cleared by MailMarshal www.marshalsoftware.com ######################################################################