Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
>> Peter Dalgaard wrote:
>>> Johannes Huesing wrote:
Stavros Macrakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at
04:59:25AM CET]:
> So I conclude that what is really meant by "R semantics are based on
> Scheme
> semantics" is "R
Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
Peter Dalgaard wrote:
Johannes Huesing wrote:
Stavros Macrakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at
04:59:25AM CET]:
So I conclude that what is really meant by "R semantics are based on
Scheme
semantics" is "R has functions as first-class citizens and a correct
im
Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> Johannes Huesing wrote:
>> Stavros Macrakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at
>> 04:59:25AM CET]:
>>> So I conclude that what is really meant by "R semantics are based on
>>> Scheme
>>> semantics" is "R has functions as first-class citizens and a correct
>>> implemen
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 4:40 AM, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> [deletions, including attribution, which I think were Stavros then Luke
> then Peter:]
>>
>> In R, most data types (including numeric vectors) do not have a standard
external representation which can be read back in w
Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
> Stavros Macrakis wrote:
>
>
>> There is no equivalent to set-car!/rplaca (not even pairlists and
>> expressions). For example, r<-pairlist(1,2); r[[1]]<-r does not create a
>> circular list. And in general there doesn't seem to be substructure sharing
>> at the semant
[deletions, including attribution, which I think were Stavros then Luke
then Peter:]
In R, most data types (including numeric vectors) do not have a standard
external representation which can be read back in without evaluation.
The default print form is not readable in this sense but dput is
a
Johannes Huesing wrote:
Stavros Macrakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 04:59:25AM CET]:
So I conclude that what is really meant by "R semantics are based on Scheme
semantics" is "R has functions as first-class citizens and a correct
implementation of lexical scope, including upwards
Stavros Macrakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 04:59:25AM CET]:
> So I conclude that what is really meant by "R semantics are based on Scheme
> semantics" is "R has functions as first-class citizens and a correct
> implementation of lexical scope, including upwards funarg".
>
One othe
Thanks for the various thoughtful replies to my post "R and Scheme", where I
wondered what exactly people meant when they said that R semantics were
based on Scheme semantics. R clearly has Scheme-like semantics for its
function objects, which are first-class objects and correctly implement
static
Luke Tierney wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
>
>> Stavros Macrakis wrote:
>>>
>>> R does not have continuations or call-with-current-continuation or
>>> other
>>> mechanisms for implementing coroutines, general iterators, and the
>>> like.
>>>
>>
>> there is callCC, for exampl
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
Stavros Macrakis wrote:
I've read in many places that R semantics are based on Scheme semantics. As
a long-time Lisp user and implementor, I've tried to make this more precise,
and this is what I've found so far. I've excluded trivial things that
a
Stavros Macrakis wrote:
> There is no equivalent to set-car!/rplaca (not even pairlists and
> expressions). For example, r<-pairlist(1,2); r[[1]]<-r does not create a
> circular list. And in general there doesn't seem to be substructure sharing
> at the semantic level (though there may be in the i
Stavros Macrakis wrote:
> I've read in many places that R semantics are based on Scheme semantics. As
> a long-time Lisp user and implementor, I've tried to make this more precise,
> and this is what I've found so far. I've excluded trivial things that
> aren't basic semantic issues: support for
Luke Tierney wrote:
R does not have macros.
Those are related -- because of lazy evaluation one does macros are
not needed to achive semantic goals (see for example tryCatch). Being
able to define friendlier syntax would sometimes be nice though (see
tryCatch again).
Also for some practical
A few comments interspersed.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Stavros Macrakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've read in many places that R semantics are based on Scheme semantics. As
> a long-time Lisp user and implementor, I've tried to make this more precise,
> and this is what I've found so fa
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
I've read in many places that R semantics are based on Scheme semantics. As
a long-time Lisp user and implementor, I've tried to make this more precise,
and this is what I've found so far. I've excluded trivial things that
aren't basic semantic issue
I've read in many places that R semantics are based on Scheme semantics. As
a long-time Lisp user and implementor, I've tried to make this more precise,
and this is what I've found so far. I've excluded trivial things that
aren't basic semantic issues: support for arbitrary-precision integers;
su
17 matches
Mail list logo
