see below.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Tony Plate <tpl...@acm.org> wrote:
> This is expected behavior from the way nls() is written. The nls() function
> has a "..." argument, which means that additional arguments are allowed.
>
> Under "Arguments" the docs say:
> |...| Additional optional arguments. None are used at present.
>
>
> As far as I can see in the code, nothing at all is done with the additional
> arguments (consistent with the docs). I guess the "..." argument is there
> to allow for future development (though I'm not sure what is gained by
> including "..." as a formal argument now, and not just adding it in the
> future if and when it is needed.)
¿Maybe it allows for other people to write methods?
Kjetil
>
> In general, the use of ... arguments does add flexibility, but it takes away
> some error-checking.
>
> -- Tony Plate
>
> stephen.b...@cibc.com wrote:
>>
>> Potential bug:
>>
>> I mistyped weights in the call ('weigths') and it did not produce any
>> error=
>> message. The coefs were exactly the same like without weights, so I was
>> su=
>> spicious and when weights(nls1) gave NULL, I saw my typo.
>>
>> Usually the function will say "Unused arguments", which shows you the
>> error=
>> , but not nls.
>>
>> Regards
>> Stephen
>>
>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
