[Rd] Should dots be used in generic functions?
Martin Maechler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:13:07 +0100
>>>>> "John" == John Chambers <email@example.com> writes:
John> 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?
John> Subject to discussion .... Either seems plausible. What currently
John> happens is that setMethod constructs a method that contains the
John> programmer's supplied definition as a local function and calls it
John> (needed so that argument re-matching can take place).
John> An advantage of the method not having ... is that errors in naming
John> arguments are more likely to be caught.
Indee. Leading to much better / understandable error messages in
many cases; (etc... you know my stories on this subject)
I'd vote quite emphatically for not requiring these in the method
-- as Paul and Duncan did in the mean time.
(Finally a really compelling reason to switch to the new method system :-) ;-)
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: firstname.lastname@example.org