Re: [Rd] changed behaviour of 'get' in 2.8.0: request for unchange

2008-10-26 Thread Luke Tierney
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks both The other item that might have a relationship to this is the ability to a copy an object without evaluating it. This can't be done entirely in R but can be done in C code from R: http://tolstoy.newcastle.edu.au/R/e2/devel/07/09/.ht

Re: [Rd] changed behaviour of 'get' in 2.8.0: request for unchange

2008-10-24 Thread Mark.Bravington
Thanks both > The other item that might have a relationship to this > is the ability to a copy an object without evaluating it. This can't be > done entirely in R but can be done in C code from R: > http://tolstoy.newcastle.edu.au/R/e2/devel/07/09/.html > For me, copying is even more importa

Re: [Rd] changed behaviour of 'get' in 2.8.0: request for unchange

2008-10-24 Thread Gabor Grothendieck
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Luke Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is already sone desire to have a > way of checking whether a binding contains a delayed evaluation, so > maybe something like a function bindingStatus that returns one of > "active", "missing", "delayed" or "evaluated"

Re: [Rd] changed behaviour of 'get' in 2.8.0: request for unchange

2008-10-24 Thread Luke Tierney
Returning the internal R_MissingArg token was a bug. From the svn logs it looks like I fixed this bug back in June (so has been in R-devel for a while) along with fixing a bug in the way system.time used to be defined. I no longer recall the details but suspect the need to fix this arose in test

[Rd] changed behaviour of 'get' in 2.8.0: request for unchange

2008-10-23 Thread Mark.Bravington
There is an unannounced and non-backwards-compatible change to the behaviour of 'get' in R2.8.0. 'get'ting a missing value now causes an error, whereas hitherto it's just returned a "missing" object. For example, in R2.8.0 this happens: test> getto <- function( x) get( 'x', sys.frame(1)) test>