On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Laurent Gautier wrote:
> Nice.
>
> What about calling the method __copy__ instead (so it fits other Python
> objects) ?
I don't really care either way. I guess calling it "duplicate" avoids
any question of whether it should be __copy__ or __deepcopy__, but
since it
Nice.
What about calling the method __copy__ instead (so it fits other Python
objects) ?
L.
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> The attached patch adds a method ".duplicate" to rinterface.Sexp
> objects. When called, it returns a new Sexp that is identical to the
> first, but shares no memory with the fi
The attached patch adds a method ".duplicate" to rinterface.Sexp
objects. When called, it returns a new Sexp that is identical to the
first, but shares no memory with the first. (Underlyingly, it just
calls Rf_duplicate.)
This is useful when you have an Sexp that you want to mutate, but you
also w
