On 06/02/2024 2:17 p.m., Hervé Pagès wrote:
Thanks. Workarounds are interesting but... what's the point of the NOTE
in the first place?
Creating a function that can't be called could be an error. Presumably
you are careful and never try to call it with the wrong signature, but
the check code
Thanks. Workarounds are interesting but... what's the point of the NOTE
in the first place?
H.
On 2/4/24 09:07, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 04/02/2024 10:55 a.m., Izmirlian, Grant (NIH/NCI) [E] via R-devel
> wrote:
>> Well you can see that yeast is exactly weekday you have. The way out
>> is t
On 04/02/2024 10:55 a.m., Izmirlian, Grant (NIH/NCI) [E] via R-devel wrote:
Well you can see that yeast is exactly weekday you have. The way out is to
just not name the result
I think something happened to your explanation...
toto <- function(mode)
{
ifelse(mode == 1,
functio
Well you can see that yeast is exactly weekday you have. The way out is to
just not name the result
toto <- function(mode)
{
ifelse(mode == 1,
function(a,b) a*b,
function(u, v, w) (u + v) / w)
}
From: Grant Izmirlian
Date: Sun, Feb 4, 2024,
Hi,
I just ran into this 'R CMD check' NOTE for the first time:
* checking R code for possible problems ... NOTE
toto: multiple local function definitions for ‘fun’ with different
formal arguments
The "offending" code is something like this (simplified from the real code):
toto <- function(m
