[Rd] Should dots be used in generic functions?

[Paul Gilbert]

John Chambers wrote:
> 
> Paul Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > John Chambers wrote:
> >
> > > 2- the method can have arguments not in the generic if the generic has
> > > ..., with the interpretation that the actual arguments matching ... may
> > > correspond to the extra arguments.
> >
> > In this case, would the method have ... as well, or not?
> 
> Subject to discussion .... Either seems plausible.  What currently
> happens is that setMethod constructs a method that contains the
> programmer's supplied definition as a local function and calls it
> (needed so that argument re-matching can take place).
> 
> An advantage of the method not having ... is that errors in naming
> arguments are more likely to be caught.
> 
This seems to bring things back much closer to the way my code is currently
written. I guess I will wait for the final outcome before I add ... to all my
methods. (It is much harder to take out then it is to add, and I do like the
error catching feature.)

Thanks,
Paul Gilbert
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._