ronggui wrote:
> I would second Dieter's point.
>
me to, among others because:
> 2009/5/18 Dieter Menne <dieter.me...@menne-biomed.de>:
>
>> Patrick Burns <pburns <at> pburns.seanet.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> I disagree with Dieter's last point.
>>> Whether you use 'attach' or 'load'
>>> should depend on whether you want the
>>> objects in the file to remain separate
>>> ('attach') or mixed into the global
>>> environment ('load').
>>>
>> Technically a good point, but I found it helpful for starters who want to
>> avoid the inferno of "what's attached now?" not to use it at all.
>> My suggestion is to use with() instead because it has a higher locality.
>>
>>
i've seen code where an assumption is made to the effect that packages
attached inside a function call will be automatically detached, e.g.:
search()
(function() attach(list()))()
search()
unfortunately, ?attach falls short of explaining this is an incorrect
expectation, and it might be a good idea to do so.
attach may also be confusing in how it interferes with lexical scoping:
p = function() print(c)
l = list(c=0)
attach(l)
p()
detach()
with(l, p())
i.e., attach may modify the behaviour of functions without changing
what's passed to them as arguments.
vQ
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
