From ggrothendieck at gmail.com  Fri Oct 24 13:27:21 2008
From: ggrothendieck at gmail.com (Gabor Grothendieck)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:27:21 -0400
Subject: [Rd] changed behaviour of 'get' in 2.8.0: request for unchange
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0810240538130.16171@itasca2.wildberry.org>
References: <62C82B39B8A85E4B95A18F7F7B852F870C6FE1A2@exvic-mbx03.nexus.csiro.au>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0810240538130.16171@itasca2.wildberry.org>
Message-ID: <971536df0810240427m4bd50c8ake19feec865c747fd@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Luke Tierney <luke at stat.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> There is already sone desire to have a
> way of checking whether a binding contains a delayed evaluation, so
> maybe something like a function bindingStatus that returns one of
> "active", "missing", "delayed" or "evaluated" makes sense.

The other item that might have a relationship to this
is the ability to a copy an object without evaluating it.  This can't be
done entirely in R but can be done in C code from R:
http://tolstoy.newcastle.edu.au/R/e2/devel/07/09/4444.html

For me, copying is even more important than inspecting and that seems
to be for Mark's case too.



[Rd] changed behaviour of 'get' in 2.8.0: request for unchange
Gabor Grothendieck