From ggrothendieck at gmail.com  Thu Mar  5 23:25:59 2009
From: ggrothendieck at gmail.com (Gabor Grothendieck)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 17:25:59 -0500
Subject: [Rd] question
In-Reply-To: <50d1c22d0903050622s2f450835k3edeb8c7f8f4df01@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50d1c22d0903050622s2f450835k3edeb8c7f8f4df01@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <971536df0903051425h31070a46h76fc666b35fc3d78@mail.gmail.com>

I posted this a few years ago (but found I never really had a
need for it):

http://tolstoy.newcastle.edu.au/R/help/04/06/1430.html



On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:22 AM, ivo welch <ivowel at gmail.com> wrote:
> dear R developers: ?it is of course easy for a third party to make
> suggestions if this third party is both clueless and does not put in
> any work. ?with these caveats, let me suggest something.
>
> The syntax for returning multiple arguments does not strike me as
> particularly appealing. ?would it not possible to allow syntax like:
>
> ? f= function() { return( rnorm(10), rnorm(20) ) }
> ? (a,d$b) = f()
>
> this would just hide the list conversion and unconversion. ?yes, I
> know how to accomplish this with lists, but it does not seem pretty or
> natural.
>
> regards,
>
> /ivo
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>



[Rd] question
Gabor Grothendieck