Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >(a) efficiency. Is it expensive no longer to have the base functions > >bound directly to their symbol? (My gut feeling is that with suitable > >hashing and cacheing, the penalty is minimal.) > > > >(b) you can *only* use get and simple variable retrieval in a non-base > >environment with a NULL parent (eval(x <- 1, envir=foo) would give > >'couldn't find function "<-"' or so). This could cause some confusion. > > (b) means that the default should stay the way it is, but I think > there should be a way to set up a truly empty environment. We have a > fair number of cases where envir=NULL is used, so it would be safest > to make it a different value -- even if NULL is the obvious value for > an empty environment.
Not necessarily. It just means that you should think about it. It is not a given that envir=NULL really means what the author expected, and fixing them up to read envir=.BaseEnv is probably quite doable. -- O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3 c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX: (+45) 35327907 ______________________________________________ R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel