From rgentlem@hsph.harvard.edu  Wed Apr 14 17:00:19 1999
From: rgentlem@hsph.harvard.edu (Robert Gentleman)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:00:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: options
In-Reply-To: <6rlnfxly82.fsf@verdi.stat.wisc.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.4.05.9904141155440.5911-100000@hsph.harvard.edu>


 Do we have a policy on checking for valid options?

In working on the warning system I tried to get S to
give a warning. So I went:

 options(object.size= -9)

 but it didn't, it exited in a rather confused state.

Is it the responsibility of the function retrieving the
option to set the value to something sensible. The user
can set them to any old thing but we will just use the
default (regardless of the state of options). Or do we
actively try to maintain the options in a "reliable state"?

As near as I can tell we currently do the former (some of the
time).



-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
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
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


options
Robert Gentleman