From Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk at idi.ntnu.no  Wed Mar 11 20:31:18 2009
From: Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk at idi.ntnu.no (Wacek Kusnierczyk)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:31:18 +0100
Subject: [Rd] surprising behaviour of names<-
In-Reply-To: <8CCAAAD3-919F-462F-A616-F4FDDB46D975@r-project.org>
References: <49B67CB1.8060005@idi.ntnu.no> <49B682F9.8050307@biostat.ku.dk>
	<49B6E6D9.7010809@idi.ntnu.no>
	<96A4BB14-D6EA-44B1-B524-6DB139F3A7F8@r-project.org>
	<8CCAAAD3-919F-462F-A616-F4FDDB46D975@r-project.org>
Message-ID: <49B81186.4070107@idi.ntnu.no>

Simon Urbanek wrote:
>
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 10:52 , Simon Urbanek wrote:
>
>> Wacek,
>>
>> Peter gave you a full answer explaining it very well. If you really
>> want to be able to trace each instance yourself, you have to learn
>> far more about R internals than you apparently know (and Peter hinted
>> at that). Internally x=1 an x=c(1) are slightly different in that the
>> former has NAMED(x) = 2 whereas the latter has NAMED(x) = 0 which is
>> what causes the difference in behavior as Peter explained. The reason
>> is that c(1) creates a copy of the 1 (which is a constant
>> [=unmutable] thus requiring a copy) and the new copy has no other
>> references and thus can be modified and hence NAMED(x) = 0.
>>
>
> Errata: to be precise replace NAMED(x) = 0 with NAMED(x) = 1 above --
> since NAMED(c(1)) = 0 and once it's assigned to x it becomes NAMED(x)
> = 1 -- this is just a detail on how things work with assignment, the
> explanation above is still correct since duplication happens
> conditional on NAMED == 2.

i guess this is what every user needs to know to understand the
behaviour one can observe on the surface?  thanks for further
clarifications.

vQ



[Rd] surprising behaviour of names<-
Wacek Kusnierczyk