On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:38:54 -0400, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>There are several places this could be fixed. When you use x$z, the >code for $ could give an error message or a warning; instead it >returns NULL with no error or warning. Changing this would probably >be dangerous: I'd guess there's code out there that relies on getting >a NULL back from a construction like that. But maybe we should change >that in 2.0? No, this would be a bad idea. A standard test for the existence of a list element is if (is.null(x$z)) .... Those would all need some other kind of test if this were changed. Not a good idea at all! Duncan Murdoch ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
