On Mar 22, 2013, at 05:57 , Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi,
Maybe a compromise would be to just issue a warning without
deprecating? That way people who want to do anova(fit1)$P can
still do it. When working interactively, it's certainly convenient
(serious code however should probably stay away
Hi,
On 03/22/2013 01:31 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
On Mar 22, 2013, at 05:57 , Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi,
Maybe a compromise would be to just issue a warning without
deprecating? That way people who want to do anova(fit1)$P can
still do it. When working interactively, it's certainly convenient
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20/03/13 17:58, Hadley Wickham wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:26 AM, peter dalgaard pda...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2013, at 16:59 , William Dunlap wrote:
Will you be doing the same for attribute names?
Not at this point.
It
On Mar 21, 2013, at 09:25 , Rainer M Krug wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20/03/13 17:58, Hadley Wickham wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:26 AM, peter dalgaard pda...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2013, at 16:59 , William Dunlap wrote:
Will you be doing the
Hi,
Maybe a compromise would be to just issue a warning without
deprecating? That way people who want to do anova(fit1)$P can
still do it. When working interactively, it's certainly convenient
(serious code however should probably stay away from partial matching).
And so you keep the semantic
Allowing partial matching on $-extraction has always been a source of
accidents. Recently, someone who shall remain nameless tried names(mydata) -
d^2 followed by mydata$d^2.
As variables in a data frame are generally considered similar to variables in,
say, the global environment, it seems
Le mercredi 20 mars 2013 à 17:16 +0100, peter dalgaard a écrit :
On Mar 20, 2013, at 16:23 , Hadley Wickham wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:28 AM, peter dalgaard pda...@gmail.com
wrote:
Allowing partial matching on $-extraction has always been a source
of accidents. Recently, someone who
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:26 AM, peter dalgaard pda...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2013, at 16:59 , William Dunlap wrote:
Will you be doing the same for attribute names?
Not at this point.
It would be really nice to have consistent behaviour across argument
names, attributes, lists and
