search for: callnextmeth

I ported that over. On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Andrzej Ole? <andrzej.oles at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Michael for updating the 3.4 branch, the `callNextMethod()` now > works for `...` methods as expected. However, I'm still missing your other > patch fixing the handling of arguments in `...` methods. It would be really > great if this bugfix could be integrated into the 3.4 branch as well, such > that the following code doesn't resu...

Hi Michael, thanks again for your patch! I've tested it and I'm happy to confirm that `callNextMethod()` works with methods dispatching on `...`. However, the second issue I reported still seems to be unresolved. Consider the following toy example, where the `f()` calls differ in result depending on whether the dispatch happens on a formal argument or the `...` argument. f = function(x, .....

..., Apr 20, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Andrzej Ole? <andrzej.oles at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I recently encountered some unexpected behavior with S4 generics > > dispatching on `...`, which I described in > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/43499203/use-callnextmethod-with- > dotsmethods > > > > TL;DR: `callNextMethod()` doesn't work in methods dispatching on `...`, > and > > arguments of such methods are resolved differently than the arguments of > > methods dispatching on formal arguments. > > > > Could this indi...

...39;s also a (passing) regression test in R. Are you sure you're using a new enough R-devel? On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Andrzej Ole? <andrzej.oles at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > thanks again for your patch! I've tested it and I'm happy to confirm that > `callNextMethod()` works with methods dispatching on `...`. > > However, the second issue I reported still seems to be unresolved. Consider > the following toy example, where the `f()` calls differ in result depending > on whether the dispatch happens on a formal argument or the `...` argument. >...