Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : > We have been approaching consensus on a couple of occasions, but > : > (obviously) not been too good at enforcing it. I think the consensus > : > is that a "frame" is a set of variable bindings (implemented as a > : > hashed list), an environment is a frame plus an enclosing environment, > : > i.e. a linked list of frames, terminated by NULL. It is occasionally > : > necessary to refer to the individual frames as opposed to the whole > : > list, which is exactly the point of the inherits argument.
.... > Regarding Peter's comment, I would prefer to keep referring to an > environment as an object of class "environment" namely what > new.env creates, parent.env changes, is.environment > queries, etc. so that R does not need a massive change. > > In that case I guess: > > - frame and environment are synonyms No. Please read what I wrote again. > - enclosing environment is an environment together with its lexical ancestors No. It *is* the lexical ancestor(s). > - the parent without further qualification is the lexical parent No. (In particular, sys.parent() is not) > - the caller or call parent is the environment one higher up on call stack ...which is a tree! and the parent caller is not necessarily the one one step above in the *context* stack. (Go play with sys.status() until you understand this.) > - an ordered set of environments can be used to refer to either the > call stack, an environment and its ancestors or other ordered set of > environments Er, what do you mean by that...??? -- O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3 c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX: (+45) 35327907 ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
