On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:56:23PM -0400, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On 5/10/2006 12:15 PM, Jan T. Kim wrote: > > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:26:55AM -0400, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > >> On 5/10/2006 11:10 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote: > >> > On 5/10/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> >> What is it that you find objectionable about having a default for the > >> >> file argument in read.table? I think Martin has said that he doesn't > >> >> want non-UI functions to be involved with UI functions, but I don't see > >> >> that: if your code works now, it will be completely unaffected by > >> >> setting a default for the argument. (Sorry if I summarized the argument > >> >> incorrectly, Martin, I didn't look it up.) > >> > > >> > That would be my objection too. UI should not be tied to the non-UI > >> > core. > >> > Its basically a loose coupling argument. > >> > >> I don't accept that argument, because in R everything* is interactive. > >> There isn't a non-UI core. The function arguments are part of the user > >> interface. > > > > It seems to me that there might be a misunderstanding here; as the term > > "user" is used to refer to a person interacting with the computer on > > the one hand, and to refer to a programmer using R on the other hand. > > One of the design goals of S and R is to blur the distinction between > users and programmers. It is a continuum. R is designed to gently urge > non-programmers to become programmers, because the designers think > that's the way statistical computing should be done.
That's an idea I like very much too -- much better than the currently popular idea of "protecting" users from the "unfriendliness" of programming, anyway... > > Everything being "part of the user interface", in the sense of > > every user-visible function being part of the API, does not and should > > not imply that everything should be interactive. > > No, I didn't suggest that. What I was suggesting is that it should be > *convenient* to use read.table interactively, not that it should be > required. (It's already possible, but not convenient, especially for a > beginner who doesn't know the secret incantation.) Well, not knowing a secret is always inconvenient... ;-) > > In my experience, interactivity is a rather double-edged thing: On the > > one hand, it facilitates learning and exploration, but on the other > > hand, its improper use is frequently detrimental to reproducibility of > > scientific computation. > > I definitely agree with that. It should be convenient to use R > non-interactively as well. Anyone who wants reproducibility should be > writing packages and scripts or vignettes that run non-interactively. Ok, I fully agree with this -- seems that I've interpreted the statement that "in R everything is interactive" a bit too narrowly. > That's why I am emphasizing that this change will have no effect on > existing code. I wouldn't suggest it if it did. That's an important point too, obviously. I'm not entirely convinced about the convenience aspect, as I find file choosers of all sorts disruptive to workflow... but that's perhaps a matter of personal taste. Best regards, Jan -- +- Jan T. Kim -------------------------------------------------------+ | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | 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
