From p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk  Sun Jun 12 22:49:29 2005
From: p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk (Peter Dalgaard)
Date: 12 Jun 2005 22:49:29 +0200
Subject: [Rd] by should use match.fun
In-Reply-To: <971536df05061212375bc4e7a3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <39B6DDB9048D0F4DAD42CB26AAFF0AFA64E98E@usctmx1106.merck.com>
	<971536df050612122118e55e2f@mail.gmail.com>
	<71D65BAB-A619-4F24-8EBA-DAA15B4ADCD2@r-project.org>
	<971536df05061212375bc4e7a3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <x2r7f7z4fa.fsf@turmalin.kubism.ku.dk>

Gabor Grothendieck <ggrothendieck at gmail.com> writes:

> On 6/12/05, Simon Urbanek <simon.urbanek at r-project.org> wrote:
....
> > Umm.. why don't you just use
> > 
> > by(iris, row.names(iris), `(`)
> > 
> > In general I consider passing functions as text unnecessary - the
> > only use I could think of is constructing function names from strings/
> > data and I'm not sure that is a good idea, either (it causes quite
> > some performance issues) ... just my 2 pennies ...
> 
> That's a good idea and I will change my code accordingly although it does 
> not change the fact that an inconsistency remains and should be
> corrected.

Also, match.fun takes some pains to actually give you a function,
guarding the user against the (otherwise well-deserved...)
consequences of storing results in an object called "summary", etc.

So, good idea. Maybe not for 2.1.1 though. This close to a release we
should be going strictly after actual bugs, not just inconsistencies.

-- 
   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             ?ster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark          Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk)                  FAX: (+45) 35327907



[Rd] by should use match.fun
Peter Dalgaard