From Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk at idi.ntnu.no  Sat Mar  7 17:37:53 2009
From: Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk at idi.ntnu.no (Wacek Kusnierczyk)
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 17:37:53 +0100
Subject: [Rd] question
In-Reply-To: <971536df0903070806g38eee325q2e0cc5f2da8141b4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <000325575fc2f3201e046488263f@google.com>	
	<49B29233.7040205@idi.ntnu.no>
	<971536df0903070806g38eee325q2e0cc5f2da8141b4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49B2A2E1.20508@idi.ntnu.no>

Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>
>> as gabor says in another post, you probably should first show why having
>> multiple value returns would be useful in r.  however, i don't think
>> there are good counterarguments anyway, and putting on you the burden of
>> proving a relatively obvious (or not so?) thing is a weak escape.
>>
>> to call for a reference, sec. 9.2.3, p. 450+ in [1] provides some
>> discussion and examples.
>>
>>     
>
> The fact that other languages is an argument for further consideration
> but not a definitive argument for it.
>   

of course!

> I have had this feature for years via my workaround yet I never
> use it which seems a good argument against it.
>   

the fact that another programmer is an argument for further
consideration but not a definitive argument against it.

vQ



[Rd] question
Wacek Kusnierczyk