Re: [Rd] good practice for values not provided

From: Duncan Murdoch <>
Date: Sun 19 Nov 2006 - 21:18:12 GMT

On 11/19/2006 3:46 PM, Tamas K Papp wrote:
> Hi,
> I am writing a collection of functions which I plan to share as a
> package later (when they are tested thoroughly), so I would like to do
> things "right" from the beginning...
> I encountered a minor question of style. Consider a function
> f <- function(a,b,x=NULL) {
> ## ...
> }
> if !is.null(x), f will use x to calculate the result, but if
> is.null(x), it will do something else not involving x at all (using
> any x would be meaningless here, so I can't use
> x=calcsomethingfrom(a,b)).
> What's the accepted way of indicating this in R with a default for x?
> x=FALSE? x=NA? x=NULL?

I think the most common is x=NULL, but probably all of those are used in some package. The advantage some default over no default and an is.missing(x) test, is that you can write g to call f with the same default:

g <- function(a,b,c,d,x=NULL) {

   # some more stuff

It would be harder if you wanted to signal missing x by not including it in the call, because you'd need a test in g.

Duncan Murdoch mailing list Received on Mon Nov 20 08:21:49 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 Mon 20 Nov 2006 - 06:30:42 GMT.

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