If you evaluate return(x) in an evironment env then then that will
execute a return from the function call associated with env or signal
an error if there is none. That is the way return() is intended to
work.
Best,
luke
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 11-02-16 7:31 AM, Martin Becker wrote:
On 15.02.2011 22:48, David Scott wrote:
On 16/02/2011 7:04 a.m., Paul Johnson wrote:
...
4. We don't want gratuitous use of "return" at the end of functions.
Why do people still do that?
Well I for one (and Jeff as well it seems) think it is good
programming practice. It makes explicit what is being returned
eliminating the possibility of mistakes and provides clarity for
anyone reading the code.
David Scott
AFAIR (but I am not sure, maybe some expert can comment on this), there
is a difference between using return and not using return when R code is
called from C-code via eval(). If my memory is correct, a return()
statement (in the R code) would abort the C function (which is trying to
evaluate the R code, e.g., the body of a function) as well, which is
probably not intended. So, the use of return() in R code may be quite
disadvantageous in certain situations.
As far as I know there is no such effect. I suspect what you saw just
triggered a bug in the C code that had stayed hidden before.
Duncan Murdoch
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
--
Luke Tierney
Statistics and Actuarial Science
Ralph E. Wareham Professor of Mathematical Sciences
University of Iowa Phone: 319-335-3386
Department of Statistics and Fax: 319-335-3017
Actuarial Science
241 Schaeffer Hall email: l...@stat.uiowa.edu
Iowa City, IA 52242 WWW: http://www.stat.uiowa.edu
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel