> "Luke" == Luke Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:12:40 -0600 (CST) writes:
Luke> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Martin Maechler wrote:
>> It's clear that some things in "..." can be passed to
>> title() and some to axis(), etc. Of course the above is
>> rea
Another way of enabling more vesatile dot-args would be to allow an
ordinary list to be used as "dotargs", e.g., the following three would be
equivalent (except for issues around lazy evaluation):
# V1: current simple passing of dotargs
function(x, ...) {
f(x, ...)
}
# V2: allow manipulation
I agree that it would be useful to be able to manipulate the contents of
<...>.
Perhaps syntax like:
dots <- dotargs() # equivalent to dots <- list(...)
val1 <- dotargs('arg1')
to extract the contents of <...> and
dotargs('arg1') <- val1
to modifiy the argument 'a
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Martin Maechler wrote:
>
> It's clear that some things in "..." can be passed to title() and
> some to axis(), etc.
> Of course the above is really silly, but I have a situation
> where I'd like to see if something, say, `myarg' is part of "..."
> {piece of cake easy, see b
This is was something like a request for your comments, thoughts
on the topic...
Many of you will know that the "..." (aka \dots) argument is
very useful for passing ``further graphical parameters'',
but can be a pain when itself is passed to too many plotting
functions inside your own function.
