From cubranic at stat.ubc.ca  Wed Jul  6 03:00:45 2011
From: cubranic at stat.ubc.ca (Davor Cubranic)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 18:00:45 -0700
Subject: [Rd] Syntactically valid names
In-Reply-To: <CABdHhvGqxsfep6UXxp+7JRXXjWMMA8x4WEgk3GSxDqA0AY0qKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimg=TM0hYA1=Obknb+486Hv8T7Fdw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201107051655.28642.cubranic@stat.ubc.ca>
	<CABdHhvGqxsfep6UXxp+7JRXXjWMMA8x4WEgk3GSxDqA0AY0qKw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201107051800.46172.cubranic@stat.ubc.ca>

On July 5, 2011 04:59:16 PM Hadley Wickham wrote:
> That's not a syntactically valid name - you use backticks to refer to
> names that are not syntactically valid.

I was too loose in my terminology: I meant that `x prime` is a valid name, but 
as you said, it is not syntactically valid.

Davor



[Rd] Syntactically valid names
Davor Cubranic