On 20 Jan 2014, at 00:00 , Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Someone might want to fix this by implementing a full syntax for complex >>> constants, but meanwhile, I think a passable workaround could be >> >> That might be nice to do. Not sure if it's easy or hard... > > I think it's hard. After seeing the 1, when the parser gets a "+", it's not > clear whether you're in the middle of a complex number or some other kind of > sum. And since users can redefine "+", it could be a really different kind, > even if it's followed by 2i.
Yes. That's what I suspected; you may need to actually change the syntax. I was thinking something like a=1C+2i, or even more radically a=_Const_(1+2i) with the idea of evaluating the contents of _Const_() at parse time or maybe rather function definition time. The latter idea might solve some other issues where R structures can't be defined as constants (pretty much any nonscalar vector, for instance), and the associated issues with non-reversibility of deparse(). But as you say, it's likely to be hard. -- Peter Dalgaard, Professor Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark Phone: (+45)38153501 Email: pd....@cbs.dk Priv: pda...@gmail.com ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
