From ggrothendieck at gmail.com  Thu Aug 19 16:32:41 2010
From: ggrothendieck at gmail.com (Gabor Grothendieck)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:32:41 -0400
Subject: [Rd] c.POSIXct
In-Reply-To: <D611103AA7EE3B4DAE7F7D49C72B291A02C7E497@EXMAIL2.bocad.bank-banque-canada.ca>
References: <AANLkTinGcXRQd5+Xmo2ad5HoofdbzhZbEaSznAgCL3vO@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTin=8k4UfBqzjQmHa9ntQP3V9zhuhsfkL_qzZyWi@mail.gmail.com>
	<D611103AA7EE3B4DAE7F7D49C72B291A02C7E497@EXMAIL2.bocad.bank-banque-canada.ca>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=m2Ti5bWVGMT=RH0xA7WF=A=1cf1jZrNjcJs9Z@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Paul Gilbert
<pgilbert at bank-banque-canada.ca> wrote:
> I used to get caught by this c() behaviour often, but now I do expect it to drop attributes. I think it would break many things if you change it, and force people to write different code when they really do want to drop attributes. When you want new behaviour it is usually better to define a new function, ca() maybe?
>

That would work if ca defaulted to c for those classes that did not
supply a ca method.



[Rd] c.POSIXct
Gabor Grothendieck