Berwin A Turlach wrote: > On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:29:14 +0100 > Wacek Kusnierczyk <waclaw.marcin.kusnierc...@idi.ntnu.no> wrote: > > >> Simon Urbanek wrote: >> >>> Wacek, >>> >>> Peter gave you a full answer explaining it very well. If you really >>> want to be able to trace each instance yourself, you have to learn >>> far more about R internals than you apparently know (and Peter >>> hinted at that). Internally x=1 an x=c(1) are slightly different in >>> that the former has NAMED(x) = 2 whereas the latter has NAMED(x) = >>> 0 which is what causes the difference in behavior as Peter >>> explained. The reason is that c(1) creates a copy of the 1 (which >>> is a constant [=unmutable] thus requiring a copy) and the new copy >>> has no other references and thus can be modified and hence NAMED(x) >>> = 0. >>> >> simon, thanks for the explanation, it's now as clear as i might >> expect. >> >> now i'm concerned with what you say: that to understand something >> visible to the user one needs to "learn far more about R internals >> than one apparently knows". your response suggests that to use r >> without confusion one needs to know the internals, >> > > Simon can probably speak for himself, but according to my reading he > has not suggested anything similar to what you suggest he suggested. :) >
so i did not say *he* suggested this. 'your response suggests' does not, on my reading, imply any intention from simon's side. but it's you who is an expert in (a dialect of) english, so i won't argue. > >> and this would be a really bad thing to say.. >> > > No problems, since he did not say anything vaguely similar to what you > suggest he said. > let's not depart from the point. vQ ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
