search for: underscore_separ

In November, we had a "bug repository conversation" with Peter Hagerty and myself: https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16065 where the bug report title started with --->> "exists" is a bottleneck for dispatch and package loading, ... Peter proposed an extra simplified and henc faster version of exists(), and I commented > --- Comment #2

...d be made for > get.if.exists, but there's still the possibility of confusion with S3 > methods, and users of other languages where "." is an operator find it a > little strange. > > If you don't like lowerCamelCase (and a lot of people don't), then I > think underscore_separated is the next best choice, so would use > get_if_exists. > > Another possibility is to make no new name at all, and just add an > optional parameter to get() (which if present acts as your value.if.not > parameter, if not present keeps the current "object not found" error...

...eparated, so an argument could be made for get.if.exists, but there's still the possibility of confusion with S3 methods, and users of other languages where "." is an operator find it a little strange. If you don't like lowerCamelCase (and a lot of people don't), then I think underscore_separated is the next best choice, so would use get_if_exists. Another possibility is to make no new name at all, and just add an optional parameter to get() (which if present acts as your value.if.not parameter, if not present keeps the current "object not found" error). Duncan Murdoch &gt...

...d be made for > get.if.exists, but there's still the possibility of confusion with S3 > methods, and users of other languages where "." is an operator find it a > little strange. > > If you don't like lowerCamelCase (and a lot of people don't), then I > think underscore_separated is the next best choice, so would use > get_if_exists. > > Another possibility is to make no new name at all, and just add an > optional parameter to get() (which if present acts as your value.if.not > parameter, if not present keeps the current "object not found" error...

...et.if.exists, but there's still the possibility of confusion with S3 >> methods, and users of other languages where "." is an operator find it a >> little strange. >> >> If you don't like lowerCamelCase (and a lot of people don't), then I >> think underscore_separated is the next best choice, so would use >> get_if_exists. >> >> Another possibility is to make no new name at all, and just add an >> optional parameter to get() (which if present acts as your value.if.not >> parameter, if not present keeps the current "object n...

...could be made for > get.if.exists, but there's still the possibility of confusion with S3 > methods, and users of other languages where "." is an operator find it a > little strange. > If you don't like lowerCamelCase (and a lot of people don't), then I > think underscore_separated is the next best choice, so would use > get_if_exists. > Another possibility is to make no new name at all, and just add an > optional parameter to get() (which if present acts as your value.if.not > parameter, if not present keeps the current "object not found" error)....

...ere's still the possibility of confusion with S3 >>> methods, and users of other languages where "." is an operator find it a >>> little strange. >>> >>> If you don't like lowerCamelCase (and a lot of people don't), then I >>> think underscore_separated is the next best choice, so would use >>> get_if_exists. >>> >>> Another possibility is to make no new name at all, and just add an >>> optional parameter to get() (which if present acts as your value.if.not >>> parameter, if not present keeps the cu...