Peter Dalgaard wrote: > Duncan Murdoch wrote: > >> I haven't done it, but I suspect we could introduce special behaviour >> for ??foo very easily. We could even have a whole hierarchy: >> >> ?foo, ??foo, ???foo, ????foo, ... >> >> >> > Heh, that's rather nice, actually. In words, that could read > > ?foo: tell me about foo! > ??foo: what can you tell me about foo? > ???foo: what can you tell me about things like foo? > ????foo: I don't know what I'm looking for but it might be something > related foo? >
I quite like this. It seems very intuitive to me -- just match the number of question marks to the level of my frustration. Pat > You do have to be careful about messing with ?, though. I think many > people, including me, would pretty quickly go nuts if ?par suddenly > didn't work the way we're used to. > > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel