Dear Jan, Since you can use variables named c, q, or t in any event, I don't see why the existence of functions with these names is much of an impediment.
The problem that I see with T and F is that allowing them to be redefined sets a trap for people. If R wants to discourage use of T and F for TRUE and FALSE, then why provide standard global variables by these names? On the other hand, if providing T and F is considered desirable (e.g., for S-PLUS compatibility), then why not make them reserved names? Regards, John -------------------------------- John Fox Department of Sociology McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario Canada L8S 4M4 905-525-9140x23604 http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox -------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan T. Kim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:22 PM > To: John Fox > Subject: Re: [R] R annoyances > > On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 11:55:22AM -0400, John Fox wrote: > > Dear Uwe, > > > > I've often wondered why T and F aren't reserved words in R > as TRUE and > > FALSE are. Perhaps there's some use of T and F as > variables, but that > > seems ill-advised. > > Personally, I'd rather argue the other way around: Reserved > words should be words that should be more unique and > expressive than just a single letter. > > In fact, I've found it slightly irritating at times that c, q > and t are functions in the base package, as I'm somewhat > prone to use all of these as local variable names... > > Best regards, Jan > -- > +- Jan T. Kim > -------------------------------------------------------+ > | *NEW* email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > | *NEW* WWW: http://www.cmp.uea.ac.uk/people/jtk > | > *-----=< hierarchical systems are for files, not for humans > >=-----* ______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
