From p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk  Wed Feb 10 14:28:19 1999
From: p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk (Peter Dalgaard BSA)
Date: 10 Feb 1999 15:28:19 +0100
Subject: Function parsing (PR#118)
In-Reply-To: J.C.Rougier@durham.ac.uk's message of Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:44:35 +0100
References: <199902101344.OAA02583@biostat.ku.dk>
Message-ID: <x290e6tjss.fsf@blueberry.kubism.ku.dk>

J.C.Rougier@durham.ac.uk writes:

> Is anyone else concerned with the way in which the R function parser
> relocates comments that occur after condional expressions in functions to
> before, i.e. 
...
> It turns out that my programming style often includes comments after
> conditionals, and I find this re-location a bit confusing.

You're not alone, it's just that nobody has had the stamina to
pinpoint how exactly this happens. An even more drastic version is in
glm.fit:

    ##-------------- end IRLS iteration -------------------------------
    for (iter in 1:control$maxit) {
        mu.eta.val <- mu.eta(eta)
        .. IRLS iteration! ..

-- 
   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Blegdamsvej 3  
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     2200 Cph. N   
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk)             FAX: (+45) 35327907
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
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
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


Function parsing (PR#118)
Peter Dalgaard BSA