[Rd] Should dots be used in generic functions?

[Martin Maechler]

>>>>> "John" == John Chambers <jmc@research.bell-labs.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 :-) ;-)

Martin
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
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
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._