search for: dotsmethod

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 indicate a potential problem with the implementation of the `...` dispatch? Cheers, Andrze...

(Brief reply, I'm traveling but as per below, this is on my radar right now so wanted to comment.) Two points regarding "dotsMethods". 1. To clarify the limitation. It's not that all the arguments have to be of the same class, but there must be one class that they belong to or subclass. (So, as in the example in the documentation, the method could be defined for a class union or other virtual class that all the act...

...S4 methods for '...' in the "remote" past, when Matrix was created. Later ... also quite a few years ago, John Chambers had added that possibility, with still some limitation (all '...' must be of the same class), and also plans to remove some of the limitations, see ?dotsMethods in R. I honestly have forgotten the history of my trying to provide 'c' methods for our "Matrix" objects after the 'dotsMethods' possibility had emerged, but I know I tried and had not seen a way to succeed "satisfactorily", but maybe I now think I maybe sho...

>>>>> John Chambers <jmc at r-project.org> >>>>> on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 09:16:38 -0700 writes: > (Brief reply, I'm traveling but as per below, this is on my radar right now so wanted to comment.) > Two points regarding "dotsMethods". > 1. To clarify the limitation. It's not that all the arguments have to be of the same class, but there must be one class that they belong to or subclass. (So, as in the example in the documentation, the method could be defined for a class union or other virtual class that al...

...es 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-callnextmeth >> od-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...

...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 indicate a potential problem...

...e 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...

...r with S4 generics >> >>> >>> > dispatching on `...`, which I described in >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/43499203/use-callnextmeth >> od-with-dotsmethods >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > TL;DR: `callNextMethod()` doesn't work in methods dispatching on >> >>> >>> > `...`, >> >>> >>> > and >> >>> >>> > arguments of such...

...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 argumen...

...koverflow.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 ?...? on...

...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. > > O...

...uations where you'd prefer to being able to use `...`. But I don't want to overstress the (current) purpose/use case behind my request. I just wondered if the limitation of not being able to mix `...` with other formal arguments could be lifted soon as the possiblity is already stated at `?dotsMethods` :-) On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Gabriel Becker <gmbecker at ucdavis.edu> wrote: > I think I understand what you're saying now, but I'm still kind of missing > the benefit from the approach. > > As far as I can tell just giving foo formals for the arguments you wan...

...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 argum...

...--------------------------- It's the result for foo("a") I'm puzzled by, since missing(y) does not evaluate to TRUE. Background ========== The methods documentation has 2 points on which the above definitions may fail. 1. The generic has regular arguments and ... arguments. But dotsMethods docs say > either the signature of the generic function is "..." only, or it > does not contain "..." Since the arguments in ... are not part of the signatures I think I'm OK, but another reading is that one just shouldn't mix ... and other argumen...

...guments >> 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 d...

...>It's the result for foo("a") I'm puzzled by, since missing(y) does not evaluate to TRUE. > >Background >========== >The methods documentation has 2 points on which the above definitions may fail. > >1. The generic has regular arguments and ... arguments. But dotsMethods docs say > > either the signature of the generic function is "..." only, or it > > does not contain "..." >Since the arguments in ... are not part of the signatures I think I'm OK, but another reading is that >one just shouldn't mix ... a...

hi. below is a small test case (hopefully minimal, though i'm still a bit confused about initializers). i would have guessed (and maybe i still would have been right) that one could re-use the name of a generic function for functions with different numbers of arguments. in the case below, class A's bB() queries the status of a single A object, so bB(A) (where here "A" is an

...?S3. o S4 methods may now be defined corresponding to "...", by creating a generic function that has "..." as its signature. A method will be selected and called if all the arguments matching "..." are from this class or a subclass. See ?dotsMethods. o New functions S3Part() and S3Class() provide access to the corresponding S3 object and class for S4 classes that extend either an S3 class or a basic R object type. o show(<class definition>) now also shows the class name. INSTALLATION o If sub-archit...

...?S3. o S4 methods may now be defined corresponding to "...", by creating a generic function that has "..." as its signature. A method will be selected and called if all the arguments matching "..." are from this class or a subclass. See ?dotsMethods. o New functions S3Part() and S3Class() provide access to the corresponding S3 object and class for S4 classes that extend either an S3 class or a basic R object type. o show(<class definition>) now also shows the class name. INSTALLATION o If sub-archit...