> Your preference is inconsistent with how the rest of R works and is
> inflexible since everything inherits from Object.
Really? Here are a couple of counterexamples in S3 and S4 objects:
> z <- 1
>
> ## S4
> setClass('A', representation(a='numeric'))
[1] "A"
> a <- new('A', a=z)
> a...@z
Error: no slot of name "z" for this object of class "A"
>
> ## S3
> a <- structure(list(a=z), class='A')
> a$z
NULL
As far as flexibility is concerned: keep the ability of people to
inherit from the parent environment if they don't mind
namespace-pollution and unpredictability.
I'm merely asking that the default behavior resemble the twenty-three
years of precedent since Ungar's original Self paper.
> Also I think your argument is based partly on repeating the original
> erroneous (relative to the writer's intention) proto code without
> repeating my correction confusing the discussion with simple user
> error.
I acknowledged your correction in an earlier email when I stated that,
"[one has] to choose between eval and parent pollution."
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
