behavior of =
08 Nov 2002 09:55:34 -0800
>>>>> "duncan" == Duncan Murdoch <email@example.com> writes:
duncan> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 08:17:12 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Philippe Grosjean wrote:
>>> foo(a=b) # Assignment of b to a, and a is passed as first argument to
>>> function foo()
>>> foo(a:=b) # b is passed to the named argument 'a' of function foo()
>> Not only would this require rewriting essentially every piece of R code
>> ever written, but even worse, := is used in other languages (and in the
>> prehistory of R) as an assignment operator so it would be even less clear
>> than the current situation.
duncan> I would say a better change (but not good enough to be worth doing,
duncan> because it would break so much) would be to drop "=" as an assignment
duncan> operator, and use ":=" for that purpose.
Why not "<-" instead of ":="? I still don't understand why this is
in anyway better (except for pascal and modula programmers, see
Thomas' point from a while back: "If you want those constructs, use
those languages", is application.
A.J. Rossini Rsrch. Asst. Prof. of Biostatistics
U. of Washington Biostatistics firstname.lastname@example.org
FHCRC/SCHARP/HIV Vaccine Trials Net email@example.com
-------------- http://software.biostat.washington.edu/ ----------------
FHCRC: M: 206-667-7025 (fax=4812)|Voicemail is pretty sketchy/use Email
UW: Th: 206-543-1044 (fax=3286)|Change last 4 digits of phone to FAX
(my tuesday/wednesday/friday locations are completely unpredictable.)
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