search for: jaffee

Why doesn't R have one, like "." in Perl or juxtaposition in awk? It does not seem impossible to introduce one, if that would be reasonable. It would seem to involve adding a table entry to main/names.c for the binary operator and a corresponding internal function, say do_dot(). This cannot be simply do_paste(), since the implied separator is "". So, do_dot() might be

Re: src/main/dotcode.c:do_dotCode() The value, if there is one, of a function called by .C or .Fortran is not captured, so one needs a wrapper. To avoid that, the user would have to declare that there is a value, specify its type, and supply an R variable to hold the value. Presumably, all of these could be combined in a new "VALUE=var" parameter. Then do_dotCode could arrange the

The loop that echoes the arguments almost always stops too soon. It apparently does that to avoid echoing the "--args" (that had been inserted) when there are no user arguments. However, when there are user arguments, the next element of the 'av' array is the last argument and usually not "--args", although it can be. ?Rscript is a little sketchy: ?--verbose?

In 'Writing R Extensions' section 6.9 there is the paragraph There are interfaces (defined in header R_ext/Applic.h) for definite and for indefinite integrals. ?Indefinite? means that at least one of the integration boundaries is not finite. An indefinite integral usually means an antiderivative, not an integral over an infinite spread. Should that first sentence end with 'for

I agree, and the text is less than ideal in several other places. But I don't especially like your phrase 'infinite range', even though the idea is right. I think the necessary terminology already exists. How about something like this? There are interfaces (defined in header R_ext/Applic.h) for definite ("proper") and for _improper_ integrals, improper meaning that at