>>>>> "DeepS" == Deepayan Sarkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> on Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:48:52 -0700 writes:
DeepS> On 9/19/06, Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Perhaps it should have another name, be made generic and extended
>> to functions in which case it would work on the formal arguments. e.g.
>>
>> read.table.comma <- modify(read.table, list(sep = ","))
>>
>> would return a function that is the same as read.table but
>> has "," as the default for sep.
>>
>> Python has something like this called partial:
>> http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/pep-309.html
DeepS> I have had similar thoughts, and even requested a variant a while
DeepS> back, with a possible implementation:
DeepS> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2006-March/036696.html
yes, indeed.
DeepS> Again, the main question is whether it makes sense to introduce this
DeepS> in `one of the base packages'.
for some reason I had hasted to port your modifyList() not only
to R-devel, but also to R-alpha (now "beta").
[So now you, Deepayan, need to upgrade lattice before release in
order to make the warning disappear].
For the mid to longer term I agree a modify() generic might be
nicer, and the method for "function" may even be more useful
than the one for list [[and modifyList() would eventually be deprecated]].
OTOH, for new generics, I'd tend to argue we should be nice R-izens
and use S4 rather than S3. For the time being that
would mean it had to go into the methods package.
Or is now {with the dramatic S4 improvements in 2.4.0} a good
time to start thinking about making "utils" depend on "methods"
or even "better" [ ;-) I know, not all agree here ]
think about a dependency tree
base -> methods -> [everything else] for the base packages ?
so we could merge 'stats4' into 'stats' ?
[[yes, I'm now going into deap-sea position, not putting my head
out to be shot easily ... ]
Martin
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
