Re: [R] Does R have a "const object"?

From: <>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:16:49 -0500

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:49 AM, <> wrote:
>> Just as a heads-up: it is likely that unlocking the bindings in base
>> for pi, T, F, probably all BULTIN and SPECIAL functions, and possibly
>> more, will start signaling warnings in the near future.  Doing this
>> may be useful at times for debugging but it can mess up assumptions
>> others make about how things in base work and so reduce code
>> reliability.
> That seems ok for pi, T and F but if its extended to everything in
> base then I would hope there is a nowarn= argument or other easy way
> to avoid the warning message.

That would defeat the purpose. Unlocking things in base may be useful for experimenting or debugging but it is not a good idea otherwise. [? assignInNamespace could be more explicit on htis and will be soon.] There is a reason we lock bindings in the first place, and that is so one can assume that these bindings have certain values and certain properties and one can write reliable programs against these assumptions.



Luke Tierney
Statistics and Actuarial Science
Ralph E. Wareham Professor of Mathematical Sciences
University of Iowa                  Phone:             319-335-3386
Department of Statistics and        Fax:               319-335-3017
    Actuarial Science
241 Schaeffer Hall                  email:
Iowa City, IA 52242                 WWW:

______________________________________________ mailing list PLEASE do read the posting guide and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.

Received on Wed 16 Mar 2011 - 16:44:50 GMT

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Wed 16 Mar 2011 - 17:00:22 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive