I have not been followin this thread but if apropos is changed note that the Help | Apropos menu item in Windows may to be changed depending on what the change is.
On 12/22/06, Martin Maechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, so be it: > > We have seen that both apropos() and find() > have used `some' non-standard evaluation up to R 2.4.1 > which gave quite incosistent behavior. > > Getting rid of non-standard evaluation get's rid of all > inconsistencies but of course is not back-compatible either. > > I'll do this. > Martin > > > >>>>> "Luke" == Luke Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>> on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:08:44 -0600 (CST) writes: > > Luke> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Kurt Hornik wrote: > >>>>>>> Martin Maechler writes: > >> > >>>>>>> "DeepS" == Deepayan Sarkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>>> on Thu, 21 Dec 2006 22:07:27 -0800 writes: > >> > DeepS> The old apropos started with: if > DeepS> (!is.character(what)) what <- > DeepS> as.character(substitute(what)) > >> > DeepS> The new one has: > >> > DeepS> if (character.only) stopifnot(is.character(what)) > DeepS> else what <- as.character(substitute(what)) > >> > DeepS> i.e., the check for is.character(what) is > DeepS> missing. This has the effect that 'what' can no > DeepS> longer be a character string generated by a function > DeepS> call unless 'character.only = TRUE'. I don't think > DeepS> this was intended; the change makes previously valid > DeepS> use invalid and I can't think of a situation where it > DeepS> is useful. > >> > >>> [ Did you read the corresponding NEWS entry? ] > >> > >>> It now parallelizes the use in library() , require() etc, > >>> and in particular does what the documentation says it does! > >> > >>> The old behavior was much less consistent and not according to > >>> documentation: > >> > >>> apropos(lm) was equivalent to apropos("lm") > >>> but apropos(fit) gave an error. > >> > >> I would actually prefer if we only had standard evaluation for apropos() > >> and find(). > >> > >> (I understand we cannot do this for library() and help().) > > Luke> I agree completely. If it is OK to make changes that make previous > Luke> usage fail then it would be better to go to standard evaluation and > Luke> let apropos(lm) fail. > > Luke> luke > > Luke> -- > Luke> Luke Tierney > Luke> Chair, Statistics and Actuarial Science > Luke> Ralph E. Wareham Professor of Mathematical Sciences > Luke> University of Iowa Phone: 319-335-3386 > Luke> Department of Statistics and Fax: 319-335-3017 > Luke> Actuarial Science > Luke> 241 Schaeffer Hall email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Luke> Iowa City, IA 52242 WWW: http://www.stat.uiowa.edu > > Luke> ______________________________________________ > Luke> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > Luke> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel