Janko Thyson
2014-Nov-27 17:45 UTC
[Rd] Feature request: mixing `...` (three dots) with other formal arguments in S4 methods
Dear List, I'm currently investigating if the argument dispatch mechanism based on `...` could somehow be "generalized" to scenarios that involve `r` recipients located across `c` calling stack layers *and* combined with the S4 method mechanism (for those interested see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/26963900/generalizing-three-dots-argument-dispatch-s4-methods-for-argument-set-i for an (conceptual) approach of how this could be realized). AFAICT, this would require that `...` can be *mixed* with other signature arguments, which is currently not supported as stated in `?dotsMethods`: Quote { Using "..." in a Signature Beginning with version 2.8.0 of R, S4 methods can be dispatched (selected and called) corresponding to the special argument ?...?. Currently, ?...? cannot be mixed with other formal arguments: either the signature of the generic function is ?...? only, or it does not contain ?...?. (This restriction may be lifted in a future version.) } Would it be possible to consider lifting this limitation soon? Thanks a lot to everyone maintaining R!! Janko [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
Gabriel Becker
2014-Nov-27 18:48 UTC
[Rd] Feature request: mixing `...` (three dots) with other formal arguments in S4 methods
Janko, I'm not entirely sure I understand your proposal. Are you suggesting methods be dispatched based on the *contents* of ... (ie which arguments are in there)? This seems like it would be pretty different from how dispatch behaves now, which is entirely class based. Even the dispatching based on ... via dots methods is class based, having nothing to do AFAIK with the argument names. From ?dotsMethods A method selecting on ?...? is specified by a single class in the call to setMethod <http://127.0.0.1:11942/library/methods/help/setMethod>. If all the actual arguments corresponding to ?...? have this class, the corresponding method is selected directly. Otherwise, the class of each argument and that class' superclasses are computed, beginning with the first ?...? argument. For the first argument, eligible methods are those for any of the classes. For each succeeding argument that introduces a class not considered previously, the eligible methods are further restricted to those matching the argument's class or superclasses. If no further eligible classes exist, the iteration breaks out and the default method, if any, is selected. No mention of argument name there. ~G On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Janko Thyson <janko.thyson at gmail.com> wrote:> Dear List, > > I'm currently investigating if the argument dispatch mechanism based on > `...` could somehow be "generalized" to scenarios that involve `r` > recipients located across `c` calling stack layers *and* combined with the > S4 method mechanism (for those interested see > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/26963900/generalizing-three-dots-argument-dispatch-s4-methods-for-argument-set-i > for an (conceptual) approach of how this could be realized). > > AFAICT, this would require that `...` can be *mixed* with other signature > arguments, which is currently not supported as stated in `?dotsMethods`: > > Quote { > Using "..." in a Signature > > Beginning with version 2.8.0 of R, S4 methods can be dispatched (selected > and called) corresponding to the special argument ?...?. Currently, ?...? > cannot be mixed with other formal arguments: either the signature of the > generic function is ?...? only, or it does not contain ?...?. (This > restriction may be lifted in a future version.) > } > > Would it be possible to consider lifting this limitation soon? > > Thanks a lot to everyone maintaining R!! > > Janko > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >-- Gabriel Becker Graduate Student Statistics Department University of California, Davis [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
Janko Thyson
2014-Nov-27 19:26 UTC
[Rd] Feature request: mixing `...` (three dots) with other formal arguments in S4 methods
Hi Gabriel, and thanks for answering. I'm basically just trying to find a way to use the power of `...` in more complex scenarios and I'm well aware that this might not be the best approach ;-) Regarding your actual question: "Are you suggesting methods be dispatched based on the *contents* of ... [...]?" Yes, I guess currently I kind of do - but not on the argument *names* I'm not expecting functions to detect the argument *names* from `...`, but the relevant "argument containers" from which then the actual arguments should be extracted and used: I thought the *actual* arguments to be passed via `...` to subsequent functions/methods could be put into an "arguments container" (as a list so you could easily use them with `do.call(foo)`) that has a class that `foo` expects for its `...` argument (e.g. `ThreedotsForFoo`). What I would like to accomplish is that `foo` auto-detects those parts coming in via `...` that are *relevant* for itself (e.g. instances of the argument container `ThreedotsForFoo`), that it handles them in a proper way (i.e. extracting the *actual* arguments from the container) and that it passes `...` along to subsequently called functions. That's why I would need methods that use mix of regular formal arguments and `...`. Best regards, Janko On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Gabriel Becker <gmbecker at ucdavis.edu> wrote:> Janko, > > I'm not entirely sure I understand your proposal. Are you suggesting > methods be dispatched based on the *contents* of ... (ie which arguments > are in there)? This seems like it would be pretty different from how > dispatch behaves now, which is entirely class based. > > Even the dispatching based on ... via dots methods is class based, having > nothing to do AFAIK with the argument names. From ?dotsMethods > > A method selecting on ?...? is specified by a single class in the call to > setMethod <http://127.0.0.1:11942/library/methods/help/setMethod>. If all > the actual arguments corresponding to ?...? have this class, the > corresponding method is selected directly. > > Otherwise, the class of each argument and that class' superclasses are > computed, beginning with the first ?...? argument. For the first argument, > eligible methods are those for any of the classes. For each succeeding > argument that introduces a class not considered previously, the eligible > methods are further restricted to those matching the argument's class or > superclasses. If no further eligible classes exist, the iteration breaks > out and the default method, if any, is selected. > > > No mention of argument name there. > > ~G > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Janko Thyson <janko.thyson at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Dear List, >> >> I'm currently investigating if the argument dispatch mechanism based on >> `...` could somehow be "generalized" to scenarios that involve `r` >> recipients located across `c` calling stack layers *and* combined with the >> S4 method mechanism (for those interested see >> >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/26963900/generalizing-three-dots-argument-dispatch-s4-methods-for-argument-set-i >> for an (conceptual) approach of how this could be realized). >> >> AFAICT, this would require that `...` can be *mixed* with other signature >> arguments, which is currently not supported as stated in `?dotsMethods`: >> >> Quote { >> Using "..." in a Signature >> >> Beginning with version 2.8.0 of R, S4 methods can be dispatched (selected >> and called) corresponding to the special argument ?...?. Currently, ?...? >> cannot be mixed with other formal arguments: either the signature of the >> generic function is ?...? only, or it does not contain ?...?. (This >> restriction may be lifted in a future version.) >> } >> >> Would it be possible to consider lifting this limitation soon? >> >> Thanks a lot to everyone maintaining R!! >> >> Janko >> >> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> > > > > -- > Gabriel Becker > Graduate Student > Statistics Department > University of California, Davis >[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
Reasonably Related Threads
- Feature request: mixing `...` (three dots) with other formal arguments in S4 methods
- Feature request: mixing `...` (three dots) with other formal arguments in S4 methods
- Feature request: mixing `...` (three dots) with other formal arguments in S4 methods
- Feature request: mixing `...` (three dots) with other formal arguments in S4 methods
- reference classes: question on inheritance