> On 21 Oct 2016, at 19:17 , Wilm Schumacher wrote:
>
> Am 21.10.2016 um 18:10 schrieb William Dunlap:
>> Are you saying that
>>f1 <- function(x) log(x)
>>f2 <- function(x) { log } (x)
>> should act differently?
> yes. Or more precisely: I would expect that.
Hi,
Am 21.10.2016 um 18:10 schrieb William Dunlap:
Are you saying that
f1 <- function(x) log(x)
f2 <- function(x) { log } (x)
should act differently?
yes. Or more precisely: I would expect that. "Should" implies, that I
want to change something. I just want to understand the behavior
You might find it useful to look at what body() shows you for your
example and to think about what return does.
Best,
luke
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Wilm Schumacher wrote:
Hi,
thx for the reply. Unfortunately that is not a simplified version of the
problem. You have a function, call it and get
Hi,
thx for the reply. Unfortunately that is not a simplified version of the
problem. You have a function, call it and get the result (numeric in,
numeric out in that case). For simplicity lets use the "return" case:
##
foobar<-function(x) { return(sqrt(x)) }(2)
##
which is a function (numeric
Here is a simplified version of your problem
> { sqrt }(c(2,4,8))
[1] 1.414214 2.00 2.828427
Do you want that to act differently?
Bill Dunlap
TIBCO Software
wdunlap tibco.com
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:10 AM, Wilm Schumacher
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I hope this is
Hi,
sry for the double posting. I forgot to mention that this example
###
f<-function(x) {
return( 2*x )
}(2)
class(f)
f(3)
f<-function(x) {
return( 2*x )
}(4)(5)
f(6)
###
leads to
##
> f<-function(x) {
+ return( 2*x )
+ }(2)
>
> class(f)
[1] "function"
>
> f(3)
[1] 6
>
>
Hi,
I hope this is the correct list for my question. I found a wired
behaviour of my R installation on the evaluation of anonymous functions.
minimal working example
###
f<-function(x) {
print( 2*x )
}(2)
class(f)
f(3)
f<-function(x) {
print( 2*x )
}(4)(5)
f(6)
###
leads to
###