Thanks for the info/suggestions!
But note that it's not just a one-step, but a two step dispatching process
with respect to `...`. That is, `foo()` and `bar()` are *not* both called
directly inside `foobar()`: `foobar()` only calls `foo()` which then calls
`bar()`.
I now came up with something
On 16/11/2014, 11:42 AM, Janko Thyson wrote:
Thanks for the info/suggestions!
But note that it's not just a one-step, but a two step dispatching
process with respect to `...`. That is, `foo()` and `bar()` are *not*
both called directly inside `foobar()`: `foobar()` only calls `foo()`
which
You have some interesting ideas about what makes for improvements in parameter
interfaces. Wrapping the arguments into a list is like creating an object to
represent all of them, except that you don't have the benefits of a class to go
with that cognitive shift. And if making classes to hold
@Duncan, @Jeff: thanks for giving me your opinions, I really appreciate
that! I'm not saying that this is something that should *generally* be used
and I perfectly understand your concerns. However: correct me if I'm wrong,
but actually I'm not doing much more than generalizing the idea behind
Dear list,
I wonder if there's a clever way to fine control the exact way arguments
are dispatched via R's three dots argument
Consider the following use case:
- you have a function foobar() that calls foo() which in turn calls bar()
- *both* foo() and bar() have an argument that's
AFAIK You have to alter the name of at least one of the y arguments as used by
foobar, and anyone calling foobar has to read about that in the help file. That
is only one y can be in e.g.
foobar - function( x, y_foo, ... ) {
foo( x, y=y_foo, ... )
bar( x, ... )
}
On 15/11/2014, 11:26 AM, Jeff Newmiller wrote:
AFAIK You have to alter the name of at least one of the y arguments as used
by foobar, and anyone calling foobar has to read about that in the help file.
That is only one y can be in e.g.
foobar - function( x, y_foo, ... ) {
foo( x,
7 matches
Mail list logo
