On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 12:21, Torsten Steuernagel wrote: > On 28 May 2004 at 8:19, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > > > I'd advise against doing this kind of optimization. It will make your > > code harder to maintain, and while it might be faster today, if "@<-" > > is really a major time sink, it's an obvious candidate for > > optimization in R, e.g. by making it .Internal or .Primitive. When > > that happens, your "optimized" code will likely be slower (if it even > > works at all). > > Agreed. I don't recommend doing this either. I don't believe it makes > any difference using "slot<-" instead of "@<-" in real life. Anyway, that > "optimized" code should always work (slower or not) because "slot<-" > is fully documented and I don't see why it should be removed or its > behaviour should change. That wouldn't only break the kind of code > mentioned here but also everything else that makes use of "slot<-". > There are several other things that were fully documented and still were removed. One of the latest cases was print.coefmat which was abruptly made Defunct without warning or grace period: code written for 1.8* didn't work in 1.9.0 and if corrected for 1.9.0 it wouldn't work in pre-1.9.0. Anything can change in R without warning, and your code may be broken anytime. Just be prepared.
cheers, jari oksanen -- Jari Oksanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html