From kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com  Fri Nov 18 18:34:56 2011
From: kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com (Kevin R. Coombes)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:34:56 -0600
Subject: [Rd] round() ignores missing arguments if it is used inside
 another function where some arguments are missing.
In-Reply-To: <CAO1zAVYLrLFLdPQkm8Wt=dTAoijqHP83a2tVRBaTXybPWNv8wA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO1zAVaS6YN=7V7tciOpgDA98haDY3wPYyuQt-cxkcsqXGsz=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1321632620.17906.68.camel@prometheus.geog.ucl.ac.uk>
	<CAO1zAVYLrLFLdPQkm8Wt=dTAoijqHP83a2tVRBaTXybPWNv8wA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EC69740.6010405@gmail.com>

You can also see the odd behavior without wrapping round in another 
function:

 > round(100.1, digits=)
[1] 100

On 11/18/2011 10:19 AM, Joris Meys wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Gavin Simpson<gavin.simpson at ucl.ac.uk>  wrote:
>> round is indicated to not evaluate its arguments. I don't follow the C
>> code well enough to know if it should be catching the missing argument
>> further on - it must be because it is falling back to the default, but
>> the above explains that the not evaluating arguments is intended.
>>
>> G
> So if I understand it right, the y argument is not evaluated in the
> fun2 function but deeper in the C code. that explains the lack of the
> error message, thanks! I keep on learning every day.
> Cheers
>
> Joris
>



[Rd] round() ignores missing arguments if it is used inside another function where some arguments are missing.
Kevin R. Coombes