On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 brahm@alum.mit.edu wrote:
> R> myfun <- function(x, ...) {x[...] <- 0; x}
> R> myfun(3)
> Error in myfun(3) : SubAssignArgs: invalid number of arguments
>
> It fails because no ... was passed. The workaround (and desired behavior)
is:
> R> myfun <- function(x, ...) {if (missing(...)) x[] <- 0 else
x[...] <- 0; x}
> R> myfun(3)
> [1] 0
>
This is interesting. Another workaround is
> myfun
function(x, ...) {x[...] <- 0; x}> myfun(3,)
[1] 0
and the problem goes down to eval.c:evalListKeepMissing, which says
/* If we have a ... symbol, we look to see what it is bound to.
* If its binding is Null (i.e. zero length)
* we just ignore it and return the cdr with all its
expressions evaluated;
The difference between myfun(3) and myfun(3,) is that in the former case
there are no ... arguments, in the latter there is a ... argument but it's
missing.
In one way this would be fairly easy to fix by writing yet another variant
of evalList that replaced an empty ... with R_MissingArg, but I'm scared.
-thomas
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !) To:
r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._