Dear all,
I have come across some Windows Script code which calls the
"file.exists" function in R to check for the existence of a particular
file on an R server. This is what the code looks like:
do
{
// some useful code
}
while (m_workspace.session.eval("file.exists(" + dataFile
+
")") != "1");
It appears that the behavior of this code is different when used with R
version 2.1.1 compared to R version 1.9.1. If the compare statement s is
changed from
while (s != "1")
to
while (s != "True")
or
while !(s)
the behavior of the code is the same with both versions of R.
After reading the R documentation, I have not found any evidence that
the original syntax (s != "1") is in any way recommended or supported
(in version 2.1.1). Still, my questions are:
1. Is it possible that the syntax has been supported in older versions
of R?
2. Is the reason for the recent change in behavior known and documented
anywhere?
I have been unable to find an answer to either question, so any
information about this would be appreciated.
Thanks,
T. Andersson
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
Dear all,
I have come across some Windows Script code which calls the
"file.exists" function in R to check for the existence of a particular
file on an R server. This is what the code looks like:
do
{
// some useful code
}
while (m_workspace.session.eval("file.exists(" + dataFile
+ ")") != "1");
It appears that the behavior of this code is different when used with
R version 2.1.1 compared to R version 1.9.1. If the compare statement
s is changed from
while (s != "1")
to
while (s != "True")
or
while !(s)
the behavior of the code is the same with both versions of R.
After reading the R documentation, I have not found any evidence that
the original syntax (s != "1") is in any way recommended or supported
(in version 2.1.1). Still, my questions are:
1. Is it possible that the syntax has been supported in older versions of R?
2. Is the reason for the recent change in behavior known and
documented anywhere?
I have been unable to find an answer to either question, so any
information about this would be appreciated.
Thanks,
T. Andersson