Sam:
Yes. Good point. (which is why my "??" was necessary).
-- Bert
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Sam Steingold wrote:
> > * Bert Gunter [2013-03-17 20:30:56 -0700]:
> >
> > I also think it fair to say that all (??) languages have these sorts
> > of malapropisms due to operator precedenc
> * Bert Gunter [2013-03-17 20:30:56 -0700]:
>
> I also think it fair to say that all (??) languages have these sorts
> of malapropisms due to operator precedence.
Except for those languages which do _not_ have "operator precedence".
Like, e.g., Lisp.
--
Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) o
Ben Bolker gmail.com> writes:
> Maybe FAQ 7.31 was referred to not for its direct relevance but as
> a measure of the "old-hand-ness" of the people who will get the joke.
!1i|!0
Chuck
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/m
Bert Gunter gene.com> writes:
>
> But this has nothing to do with 7.31 and everything to do with operator
> precedence and automatic casting from integers to logical and vice-versa.
>
> I also think it fair to say that all (??) languages have these sorts of
> malapropisms due to operator prece
But this has nothing to do with 7.31 and everything to do with operator
precedence and automatic casting from integers to logical and vice-versa.
I also think it fair to say that all (??) languages have these sorts of
malapropisms due to operator precedence.
-- Bert
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:17
Chuck,
What an absolutely wonderful R Infernoism.
Pat
On 18/03/2013 02:17, Charles Berry wrote:
Hi all,
The subject line is TRUE.
Today I accidentally typed rnorm(!0).
My old eyes took a minute to focus clearly enough to see what I really typed and
why I got '!0' random numbers instead of
Hi all,
The subject line is TRUE.
Today I accidentally typed rnorm(!0).
My old eyes took a minute to focus clearly enough to see what I really typed and
why I got '!0' random numbers instead of '10' random normal numbers.
If the subject line is disturbing, be assured that this is TRUE:
!0^2
7 matches
Mail list logo
