Hi,
sry for the double posting. I forgot to mention that this example
###
f<-function(x) {
return( 2*x )
}(2)
class(f)
f(3)
f<-function(x) {
return( 2*x )
}(4)(5)
f(6)
###
leads to
##
> f<-function(x) {
+ return( 2*x )
+ }(2)
>
> class(f)
[1] "function"
>
> f(3)
[1] 6
>
> f<-function(x) {
+ return( 2*x )
+ }(4)(5)
>
> f(6)
[1] 12
##
which is even stranger (at least for me) and contradicts the first
listing imho in behaviour.
Best wishes,
Wilm
Am 21.10.2016 um 15:10 schrieb Wilm Schumacher:
Hi,
I hope this is the correct list for my question. I found a wired
behaviour of my R installation on the evaluation of anonymous functions.
minimal working example
###
f<-function(x) {
print( 2*x )
}(2)
class(f)
f(3)
f<-function(x) {
print( 2*x )
}(4)(5)
f(6)
###
leads to
###
> f<-function(x) {
+ print( 2*x )
+ }(2)
>
> class(f)
[1] "function"
>
> f(3)
[1] 6
Error in f(3) : attempt to apply non-function
>
> f<-function(x) {
+ print( 2*x )
+ }(4)(5)
>
> f(6)
[1] 12
Error in f(6) : attempt to apply non-function
###
is this a bug or desired behavior? Using parenthesis of coures solves
the problem. However, I think the operator precedence could be the
problem here. I looked at the "./src/main/gram.y" and I think that the
line 385
| FUNCTION '(' formlist ')' cr expr_or_assign %prec LOW
should be of way higher precedence. But I cannot forsee the side
effects of that (which could be horrible in that case).
If this is the desired behaviour and not a bug, I'm very interested in
the rational behind that.
Best wishes,
Wilm
ps:
$ R --version
R version 3.3.1 (2016-06-21) -- "Bug in Your Hair"
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
