R annoyances 2005-05-19 - By John Fox
Dear Jan,
Since you can use variables named c, q, or t in any event, I don't see why
the existence of functions with these names is much of an impediment.
The problem that I see with T and F is that allowing them to be redefined
sets a trap for people. If R wants to discourage use of T and F for TRUE and
FALSE, then why provide standard global variables by these names? On the
other hand, if providing T and F is considered desirable (e.g., for S-PLUS
compatibility), then why not make them reserved names?
Regards,
John
--------------------------------
John Fox
Department of Sociology
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario
Canada L8S 4M4
905-525-9140x23604
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox
--------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan T. Kim [mailto:jtk@(protected)]
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:22 PM
> To: John Fox
> Subject: Re: [R] R annoyances
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 11:55:22AM -0400, John Fox wrote:
> > Dear Uwe,
> >
> > I've often wondered why T and F aren't reserved words in R
> as TRUE and
> > FALSE are. Perhaps there's some use of T and F as
> variables, but that
> > seems ill-advised.
>
> Personally, I'd rather argue the other way around: Reserved
> words should be words that should be more unique and
> expressive than just a single letter.
>
> In fact, I've found it slightly irritating at times that c, q
> and t are functions in the base package, as I'm somewhat
> prone to use all of these as local variable names...
>
> Best regards, Jan
> --
> +- Jan T. Kim
> -------------------------------------------------------+
> | *NEW* email: jtk@(protected)
> |
> | *NEW* WWW: http://www.cmp.uea.ac.uk/people/jtk
> |
> *-----=< hierarchical systems are for files, not for humans
> >=-----*
______________________________________________
R-help@(protected) mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
|
|
