Dear Martin Morgan,
thank you very much for your answer that made it clear to me.
Since my package is linked to yours by essence, there is no reason to
redefine the existing setGeneric functions.
As a summary, if someone is importing functions from another package, he is
supposed to know they alr
the world's most minor typo on
https://github.com/hadley/devtools/wiki/Rcpp
optimisiation
helpful page, btw! thanks!
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-pr
(apologies for not having edited the to/cc list)
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-conta
On 02/20/2013 02:19 AM, Romain Fenouil wrote:
Dear members,
please excuse me for eventual mistake in posting my first message on this
list.
I am actually glad to read these very interesting questions and answers
because I have been facing a related situation for the last 2 days. I am
writing a R
Dear members,
please excuse me for eventual mistake in posting my first message on this
list.
I am actually glad to read these very interesting questions and answers
because I have been facing a related situation for the last 2 days. I am
writing a R package that is using some of the interesting f
William,
> and here mention "intra-class name clashes" (I'm not sure what you
> mean by this).
sorry, i meant, in something like C++, if i have a class Foo and you
have a class Bar, then i can invent whatever method names/signatures i
want, independent of whatever method names/signatures *you* wa
This is unfortunately reinforced by the "(Not So) Short Introduction
to S4 Object Oriented Programming in R" - I wouldn't recommend that
document to learn about S4.
The most important thing to get about OO in R is that methods belong
to generic functions, not like classes, as in most other program
I thought you were thinking of the R class system (the S3 and S4 ones
anyway) as if it were C++'s. It is quite different.
Bill Dunlap
Spotfire, TIBCO Software
wdunlap tibco.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Minshall [mailto:minsh...@umich.edu]
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 1:37
..@r-project.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Greg Minshall
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 3:35 AM
> To: Martin Morgan
> Cc: r-help@r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [R] 2 setGeneric's, same name, different method signatures
>
> Martin,
>
> fantastic. thank you *very* much!
Martin,
fantastic. thank you *very* much! that clears lots of things up for
me.
(for the record: i think that setGeneric overwriting a previous is more
surprising -- thus violating the principle of least surprise -- than one
function overwriting a previous, in that we think of (or, one way to
t
i'm answering my own question:
1. setGeneric's override (wipe out, really) previous ones. (this is
pointed out in section 5.3 of "A (Not So) Short Introduction to S4
Object Oriented Programming in R" by Christophe Genolini.)
2. the *names* of the formals are important.
3. one can specify a
On 2/14/2013 8:57 AM, Greg Minshall wrote:
hi. below is a small test case (hopefully minimal, though i'm still a
bit confused about initializers).
i would have guessed (and maybe i still would have been right) that one
could re-use the name of a generic function for functions with different
num
12 matches
Mail list logo
