On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 1:10 PM S Ellison <s.elli...@lgcgroup.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > plot(x=1:10, y=)
> > > plot(x=1:10, y=, 10:1)
> > >
> > > In both cases, 'y=' is ignored. In the first, the plot is for y=NULL (so
> > > not
> > 'missing' y)
> > > In the second case, 10:1 is positionally matched to y despite the
> > > intervening
> > 'missing' 'y='
> > >
> > > So it isn't just 'missing'; it's 'not there at all'
> >
> > What exactly is the difference between "missing" and "not there at all"?
>
> A "missing argument" in R means that an argument with no default value was
> omitted from the call, and that is what I meant by "missing".
> But that is not what is happening here. I was talking about "y=" apparently
> being treated as not present in the call, rather than the argument y being
> treated as a missing argument.
>
> In these examples, plot.default has a default value for y (NULL) so y can
> never be "missing" in the sense of the 'missing argument' error (compare what
> happens with plot(y=1:10), which reports x as 'missing').
> In the first example, y was (from the plot behaviour) taken as NULL - the
> default - so was not considered a missing argument. In the second, it was
> taken as 10:1 - again, non-missing, despite 10:1 being in the normal position
> for the (character) argument "type".
> But neither call did anything at all with "y=". Instead, the behaviour is
> consistent with what would have happened if 'y=' were "not present at all"
> when counting position or named argument list, rather than if 'y' were an
> absent required argument.
> It _looks_ as if the initial call parsing silently ignored the malformed
> expression "y=" before any argument matching - positional or by name - takes
> place.
Yes, I think all of that is correct. But y _is_ missing in this sense:
> debug(plot)
> plot(1:10, y=)
debugging in: plot(1:10, y = )
debug: UseMethod("plot")
Browse[2]> missing(y)
[1] TRUE
though this does not explain the behavior since
> plot( , , "l")
debugging in: plot(, , "l")
debug: UseMethod("plot")
Browse[2]> missing(y)
[1] TRUE
--Ista
>
> But I'm thinking that it'll take an R-core guru to explain what's going on
> here, so I was going to wait and see.
>
> Steve Ellison
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential. Any u...{{dropped:8}}
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
