Re: [R] with vs. attach

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:12 AM, peter dalgaard wrote: > > On 09 May 2016, at 02:46 , Bert Gunter wrote: > >> ... To be clear, Hadley or anyone else should also feel free to set me >> straight, preferably publicly, but privately if you prefer. > > Not

Re: [R] with vs. attach

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Bert Gunter wrote: > Jeff: > > That's easy to do already with substitute(), since you can pass around > an unevaluated expression (a parse tree) however you like. As I read > it, (admittedly quickly) what it's main feature is that it allows

Re: [R] with vs. attach

On 09 May 2016, at 02:46 , Bert Gunter wrote: > ... To be clear, Hadley or anyone else should also feel free to set me > straight, preferably publicly, but privately if you prefer. Not really to "set anyone straight", but there are some subtleties with mode call

Re: [R] with vs. attach

... To be clear, Hadley or anyone else should also feel free to set me straight, preferably publicly, but privately if you prefer. Cheers, Bert Bert Gunter "The trouble with having an open mind is that people keep coming along and sticking things into it." -- Opus (aka Berkeley Breathed in his

Re: [R] with vs. attach

Jeff: That's easy to do already with substitute(), since you can pass around an unevaluated expression (a parse tree) however you like. As I read it, (admittedly quickly) what it's main feature is that it allows you more control over the environment in which the expression is finally evaluated --

Re: [R] with vs. attach

The lazyeval package addresses the problem of how to delay evaluation even when the function you want to do the evaluation in is buried two or more function calls below where the original call was made. If you are not building nested function calls with delayed evaluation then you probably

Re: [R] with vs. attach

Hi, Hadley et al.: Hadley's link requires his development version of "lazyeval", which can be obtained as follows: library(devtools) install_github("hadley/lazyeval") Hadley's link describes real problems with elegant solutions. However, David's solution solved my

Re: [R] with vs. attach

You may want to read http://rpubs.com/hadley/157957, which captures my latest thinking (and tooling) around this problem. Feedback is much appreciated. Hadley On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:14 PM, David Winsemius wrote: > >> On May 6, 2016, at 5:47 AM, Spencer Graves >>

Re: [R] with vs. attach

> On May 6, 2016, at 5:47 AM, Spencer Graves > wrote: > > > > On 5/6/2016 6:46 AM, peter dalgaard wrote: >> On 06 May 2016, at 02:43 , David Winsemius wrote: >> On May 5, 2016, at 5:12 PM, Spencer Graves

Re: [R] with vs. attach

On 5/6/2016 6:46 AM, peter dalgaard wrote: On 06 May 2016, at 02:43 , David Winsemius wrote: On May 5, 2016, at 5:12 PM, Spencer Graves wrote: I want a function to evaluate one argument in the environment of a data.frame

Re: [R] with vs. attach

On 06 May 2016, at 02:43 , David Winsemius wrote: > >> On May 5, 2016, at 5:12 PM, Spencer Graves >> wrote: >> >> I want a function to evaluate one argument >> in the environment of a data.frame supplied >> as another argument.

Re: [R] with vs. attach

On 5/5/2016 11:17 PM, Bert Gunter wrote: ... and it's exactly with.default's code ! Thanks for pointing that out. Unfortunately, it didn't work inside another function. However, if I had looked at it, I might have been able to thought to try it. Spencer Cheers, Bert Bert Gunter

Re: [R] with vs. attach

... and it's exactly with.default's code ! Cheers, Bert Bert Gunter "The trouble with having an open mind is that people keep coming along and sticking things into it." -- Opus (aka Berkeley Breathed in his "Bloom County" comic strip ) On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Spencer Graves

Re: [R] with vs. attach

Hi, David: That works. Thanks very much. Spencer Graves On 5/5/2016 7:43 PM, David Winsemius wrote: On May 5, 2016, at 5:12 PM, Spencer Graves wrote: I want a function to evaluate one argument in the environment of a data.frame supplied as another

Re: [R] with vs. attach

> On May 5, 2016, at 5:12 PM, Spencer Graves > wrote: > > I want a function to evaluate one argument > in the environment of a data.frame supplied > as another argument. "attach" works for > this, but "with" does not. Is there a way > to make "with" work?

Re: [R] source() vs attach()0

Duncan Murdoch wrote: Just declaring it there is the only reasonable way, i.e. test-function(foo) { subtest - function() { foo - foo+1 } subtest() return(foo) } The reason you can't somehow assign it within an existing test is that subtest is a different closure every time. Its