From pgilbert@bank-banque-canada.ca  Tue May 15 18:28:01 2001
From: pgilbert@bank-banque-canada.ca (Paul Gilbert)
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:28:01 -0400
Subject: [Rd] truncate
References: <Pine.LNX.4.31.0105151757200.7983-100000@gannet.stats>
Message-ID: <3B016720.73F88B23@bank-banque-canada.ca>

PG> I don't think there is a problem, but there used to be a recommendation to use
the
PG> same name for the first argument in generic and specific methods. Is that still
PG> important?

BDR>It is desirable in R, important in S, essential in S-PLUS 6.0.

BDR>There is already a truncate function in Rstreams, BTW, which this
BDR>is intended to supersede.  That (and that in R-devel) do mean the same as
BDR>the system call truncate(3c), which I guess yours does not.

I guess if functions are going to be moving from packages into base there will be a
lot more chance for name conflicts. Generic functions help a lot to solve this but it
seems a naming convention for the first argument may be a good idea too. Some time
ago I changed many of my generic functions to use "x" as the first argument (on
someone's recommendation).

Paul Gilbert

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


[Rd] truncate
Paul Gilbert