From h.wickham at gmail.com  Sat Sep 30 17:13:36 2006
From: h.wickham at gmail.com (hadley wickham)
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 10:13:36 -0500
Subject: [Rd] Help for methods
In-Reply-To: <451E68EE.8080201@stats.uwo.ca>
References: <f8e6ff050609180824y1ca82a2cm3c3520ade980f7e8@mail.gmail.com>
	<450FE1A3.8030808@cimr.cam.ac.uk>
	<f8e6ff050609190552v34d29e95m4c62b9f8c7f3841e@mail.gmail.com>
	<450FEB14.1080409@stats.uwo.ca>
	<f8e6ff050609190616h26cf45em427f3ecb8a30ca28@mail.gmail.com>
	<450FF864.20803@stats.uwo.ca>
	<f8e6ff050609292217t2e038583pa7a70ef490a66e54@mail.gmail.com>
	<451E68EE.8080201@stats.uwo.ca>
Message-ID: <f8e6ff050609300813s5a6b5f38gf4d6de07bc57f0d4@mail.gmail.com>

> See the .helpForCall function in utils.  It would recognize that the
> function was an S4 generic, and then work out the signature and look for
> matching help.  I think working out the signature in the case above
> would require it to call lm(...).  So there's a precedent for what I
> called a "huge mistake":  maybe it's not so huge...

And I'd imagine, in practice, most people would be doing something like

x<- ...
?summary(x)

so that wouldn't have to do an extra computation.

Hadley




[Rd] Help for methods
hadley wickham