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 ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
