On Jun 30, 2013, at 14:35 , Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 13-06-29 11:58 PM, Greg Snow wrote:
>> If you want to write really confusing code it is possible to do:
>>
>> `1` <- 2
>>
>> `1` + 1
>>
>> and things like that, but it is probably a good idea not to.
>
> This is actually pretty simple, as
On Jun 30, 2013, at 5:35 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 13-06-29 11:58 PM, Greg Snow wrote:
>> If you want to write really confusing code it is possible to do:
>>
>> `1` <- 2
>>
>> `1` + 1
>>
>> and things like that, but it is probably a good idea not to.
>
> This is actually pretty simple, a
On 13-06-29 11:58 PM, Greg Snow wrote:
If you want to write really confusing code it is possible to do:
`1` <- 2
`1` + 1
and things like that, but it is probably a good idea not to.
This is actually pretty simple, as the White Knight could tell you. `1`
is what the name of 2 is called. Th
On 30/06/13 15:58, Greg Snow wrote:
If you want to write really confusing code it is possible to do:
`1` <- 2
`1` + 1
and things like that, but it is probably a good idea not to.
Fortune?
cheers,
Rolf
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing
If you want to write really confusing code it is possible to do:
`1` <- 2
`1` + 1
and things like that, but it is probably a good idea not to.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
> On 29/06/13 02:54, John Fox wrote:
>
>> Dear Duncan and Steve,
>>
>> Since Steve's example rais
---Original Message-
> From: r-help-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-help-boun...@r-project.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Yihui Xie
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 7:12 PM
> To: Rolf Turner
> Cc: r-help@r-project.org; John Fox
> Subject: Re: [R] Lexical scoping is not what I expect
I just realized this was also possible:
> assign('TRUE', FALSE)
> TRUE
[1] TRUE
> get('TRUE')
[1] FALSE
but it is probably a different story.
Regards,
Yihui
--
Yihui Xie
Phone: 206-667-4385 Web: http://yihui.name
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:30 PM,
On 29/06/13 02:54, John Fox wrote:
Dear Duncan and Steve,
Since Steve's example raises it, I've never understood why it's legal to
change the built-in global "constants" in R, including T and F. That just
seems to me to set a trap for users. Why not treat these as reserved
symbols, like TRUE, In
Dear Brian,
> -Original Message-
> From: r-help-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-help-bounces@r-
> project.org] On Behalf Of Prof Brian Ripley
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 11:16 AM
> To: r-help@r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [R] Lexical scoping is not what I expect
>
n...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 11:07 AM
> To: John Fox
> Cc: 'S Ellison'; r-help@r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [R] Lexical scoping is not what I expect
>
> On 28/06/2013 10:54 AM, John Fox wrote:
> > Dear Duncan and Steve,
> >
> > Since S
40 AM
To: S Ellison
Cc: r-help@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R] Lexical scoping is not what I expect
On 28/06/2013 9:28 AM, S Ellison wrote:
I too find R's lexical scoping rules straightforward.
However, I'd say that if your code relies on lexical
scoping to find something, you should prob
rdoch
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 9:40 AM
> To: S Ellison
> Cc: r-help@r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [R] Lexical scoping is not what I expect
>
> On 28/06/2013 9:28 AM, S Ellison wrote:
> >
> > > > I too find R's lexical scoping rules straightforward.
, Inf, etc.?
Best,
John
> -Original Message-
> From: r-help-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-help-bounces@r-
> project.org] On Behalf Of Duncan Murdoch
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 9:40 AM
> To: S Ellison
> Cc: r-help@r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [R] Lexical scoping is not what
On 28/06/2013 9:28 AM, S Ellison wrote:
> > I too find R's lexical scoping rules straightforward.
> > However, I'd say that if your code relies on lexical
> > scoping to find something, you should probably rewrite your code.
>
> Except of course that almost every function relies on lexical
> s
> > I too find R's lexical scoping rules straightforward.
> > However, I'd say that if your code relies on lexical
> > scoping to find something, you should probably rewrite your code.
>
> Except of course that almost every function relies on lexical
> scoping to some extent!
This could get m
> I too find R's lexical scoping rules straightforward.
> However, I'd say that if your code relies on lexical scoping to find
> something, you should probably rewrite your code.
Except of course that almost every function relies on lexical scoping
to some extent!
Do you want:
f <- function(a,
Duncan,
"I disagree with Duncan" was not at all the intent of my note, but on rereading it does
have that flavor. Chastisement accepted. Due to the documentation angle I'd simply
change your original "maybe" to "sometimes maybe". A bit more caution but the same message.
Terry T.
On 06/27/2
On 13-06-27 8:18 AM, Terry Therneau wrote:
I second Ellison sentiments of "almost never". One main reason is readability
on later
viewing.
Yes, as Duncan says global variables can sometimes be handy and make functions
quick to
write, but using a formal argument in the call is always clearer.
I second Ellison sentiments of "almost never". One main reason is readability on later
viewing.
Yes, as Duncan says global variables can sometimes be handy and make functions quick to
write, but using a formal argument in the call is always clearer.
Terry Therneau
On 06/27/2013 05:00 AM, r-he
On 13-06-26 6:57 AM, S Ellison wrote:
-Original Message-
It may be helpful not to worry about the technical details,
just to look at the source code defining the function: if it
is defined in a place where a variable can be seen, it can
see that variable.
I too find R's lexical scop
> -Original Message-
> It may be helpful not to worry about the technical details,
> just to look at the source code defining the function: if it
> is defined in a place where a variable can be seen, it can
> see that variable.
I too find R's lexical scoping rules straightforward.
H
On 13-06-24 9:22 PM, David Kulp wrote:
Indeed, I misread / misunderstood. I think it's a difficult concept
that's hard to explain and the example wasn't great. But thanks all for
straightening me out!
It seems like a really natural definition to me, but I'm used to it.
Once you get used to it
function that uses it.
Bill Dunlap
Spotfire, TIBCO Software
wdunlap tibco.com
> -Original Message-
> From: r-help-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-help-boun...@r-project.org] On
> Behalf
> Of David Kulp
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 6:22 PM
> To: Duncan Murdoch
>
Indeed, I misread / misunderstood. I think it's a difficult concept that's hard
to explain and the example wasn't great. But thanks all for straightening me
out!
â
David Kulp
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
> On 13-06-24 4:27 PM, David Kulp wrote:
>> According to
>> h
On 13-06-24 4:27 PM, David Kulp wrote:
According to
http://cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Fox-Companion/appendix-scope.pdf and
other examples online, I am to believe that R resolves variables using lexical
scoping by following the frames up the call stack.
You appear to have misread it. Lex
On Jun 24, 2013, at 3:27 PM, David Kulp wrote:
> According to
> http://cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Fox-Companion/appendix-scope.pdf and
> other examples online, I am to believe that R resolves variables using
> lexical scoping by following the frames up the call stack. However, that's
>
I hope that Robert Gentleman is currently getting a thrill. :-)
[See fortune("lexical scoping").]
cheers,
Rolf Turner
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide htt
f1<- function(x){env<- parent.frame();env$a<-5; g(x)}
f1(2)
#[1] 7
f1(7)
#[1] 12
f1(5)
#[1] 10
A.K.
From: David Kulp
To: "r-help@r-project.org"
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 4:27 PM
Subject: [R] Lexical scoping is not what I expect
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:27 PM, David Kulp wrote:
> According to
> http://cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Fox-Companion/appendix-scope.pdf and
> other examples online, I am to believe that R resolves variables using
> lexical scoping by following the frames up the call stack. However, that's
Hello,
The object 'a' exists if function f() not in the global environment
where g() is defined. R is in fact going up, but to the global
environment and not finding 'a'. Try, as an example, the following.
f <- function(x) {
g <- function(y) { y + a }
a <- 5
g(x)
}
According to
http://cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Fox-Companion/appendix-scope.pdf and
other examples online, I am to believe that R resolves variables using lexical
scoping by following the frames up the call stack. However, that's not working
for me. For example, the following code, taken
31 matches
Mail list logo
