Re: [Rd] apropos changes in r-devel: intended feature or bug?

From: Gabor Grothendieck <ggrothendieck_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri 22 Dec 2006 - 13:56:45 GMT

I have not been followin this thread but if apropos is changed note that the

   Help | Apropos
menu item in Windows may to be changed depending on what the change is.

On 12/22/06, Martin Maechler <maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
> Ok, so be it:
>
> We have seen that both apropos() and find()
> have used `some' non-standard evaluation up to R 2.4.1
> which gave quite incosistent behavior.
>
> Getting rid of non-standard evaluation get's rid of all
> inconsistencies but of course is not back-compatible either.
>
> I'll do this.
> Martin
>
>
> >>>>> "Luke" == Luke Tierney <luke@stat.uiowa.edu>
> >>>>> on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:08:44 -0600 (CST) writes:
>
> Luke> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Kurt Hornik wrote:
> >>>>>>> Martin Maechler writes:
> >>
> >>>>>>> "DeepS" == Deepayan Sarkar <deepayan.sarkar@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> on Thu, 21 Dec 2006 22:07:27 -0800 writes:
> >>
> DeepS> The old apropos started with: if
> DeepS> (!is.character(what)) what <-
> DeepS> as.character(substitute(what))
> >>
> DeepS> The new one has:
> >>
> DeepS> if (character.only) stopifnot(is.character(what))
> DeepS> else what <- as.character(substitute(what))
> >>
> DeepS> i.e., the check for is.character(what) is
> DeepS> missing. This has the effect that 'what' can no
> DeepS> longer be a character string generated by a function
> DeepS> call unless 'character.only = TRUE'. I don't think
> DeepS> this was intended; the change makes previously valid
> DeepS> use invalid and I can't think of a situation where it
> DeepS> is useful.
> >>
> >>> [ Did you read the corresponding NEWS entry? ]
> >>
> >>> It now parallelizes the use in library() , require() etc,
> >>> and in particular does what the documentation says it does!
> >>
> >>> The old behavior was much less consistent and not according to
> >>> documentation:
> >>
> >>> apropos(lm) was equivalent to apropos("lm")
> >>> but apropos(fit) gave an error.
> >>
> >> I would actually prefer if we only had standard evaluation for apropos()
> >> and find().
> >>
> >> (I understand we cannot do this for library() and help().)

>
> Luke> I agree completely. If it is OK to make changes that make previous
> Luke> usage fail then it would be better to go to standard evaluation and
> Luke> let apropos(lm) fail.
>
> Luke> luke
>
> Luke> --
> Luke> Luke Tierney
> Luke> Chair, Statistics and Actuarial Science
> Luke> Ralph E. Wareham Professor of Mathematical Sciences
> Luke> University of Iowa Phone: 319-335-3386
> Luke> Department of Statistics and Fax: 319-335-3017
> Luke> Actuarial Science
> Luke> 241 Schaeffer Hall email: luke@stat.uiowa.edu
> Luke> Iowa City, IA 52242 WWW: http://www.stat.uiowa.edu
>
> Luke> ______________________________________________
> Luke> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> Luke> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>



R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel Received on Sat Dec 23 03:01:06 2006

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.1.8, at Fri 22 Dec 2006 - 16:31:03 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel. Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.