From Kurt.Hornik at wu-wien.ac.at  Fri Oct 17 09:51:54 2003
From: Kurt.Hornik at wu-wien.ac.at (Kurt Hornik)
Date: Fri Oct 17 09:54:10 2003
Subject: [Rd] data() misbehaving inside a function
In-Reply-To: <85ptgwuwth.fsf@blindglobe.net>
References: <20031016141029.A22651@jessie.research.bell-labs.com>
	<x2u169ngpg.fsf@biostat.ku.dk>
	<16271.38024.30026.993340@mithrandir.hornik.net>
	<16271.39483.58310.535259@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
	<16271.39893.702849.859781@mithrandir.hornik.net>
	<85ptgwuwth.fsf@blindglobe.net>
Message-ID: <16271.40858.42254.407785@mithrandir.hornik.net>

>>>>> A J Rossini writes:

> Kurt Hornik <Kurt.Hornik@wu-wien.ac.at> writes:
>   <Martin wrote re dropping unquoted function args from packages/data>

>>> Definitely not worth the pain (I *know* I'd hear ... comments from
>>> them!)!  

> I might be one of them.  You'll hear my screams for weeks...

[Fortunately, you're mostly in Seattle ...]

>> Actually, I do think it is worth the pain.  The way I understand it, we
>> have a strategic decision to gradually eliminate non-standard eval.

> and for better or worse, I actually agree with Kurt.  Most languages
> don't let you do non-standard eval regularly, and in R/S, it is used
> "regularly".  I don't think that the added complexity is worth the
> convenience of saving 2 keystrokes.

:-)

-k


[Rd] data() misbehaving inside a function
Kurt Hornik