> On 21 Oct 2016, at 19:17 , Wilm Schumacher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Am 21.10.2016 um 18:10 schrieb William Dunlap:
>> Are you saying that
>> f1 <- function(x) log(x)
>> f2 <- function(x) { log } (x)
>> should act differently?
> yes. Or more precisely: I would expect that. "Should" implies, that I want to
> change something. I just want to understand the behavior (or file a bug, if
> this would have been one).
I think Bill and Luke are failing in trying to make you work out the logic for
yourself...
The point is that
{
some_computation
}(x)
is an expression that evaluates some_computation and applies it as a function
to the argument x (or fails if not a function).
When you define functions, the body can be a single expression, so
f <- function(a)
{
some_computation
}(x)
is effectively the same as
f <- function(a) {
{
some_computation
}(x)
}
where you seem to be expecting
{f <- function(a) {
{
some_computation
}
}(x)
Got it?
--
Peter Dalgaard, Professor,
Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School
Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Phone: (+45)38153501
Office: A 4.23
Email: [email protected] Priv: [email protected]
______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
