Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improved PR #42

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jul 6, 2016
Merged

Improved PR #42

merged 4 commits into from
Jul 6, 2016

Conversation

hofnerb
Copy link
Member

@hofnerb hofnerb commented Jul 6, 2016

No description provided.

@hofnerb hofnerb changed the title Patch 1 Improved PR Jul 6, 2016
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.004%) to 79.479% when pulling 251bca0 on hofnerb:patch-1 into 77ac6a2 on boost-R:master.

@mvkorpel
Copy link
Contributor

mvkorpel commented Jul 6, 2016

Yes, there is no need to introduce a new variable to hold the matched function. It is just a personal habit of mine not to modify the arguments of a function. This is one of the things checked by codetools::checkUsagePackage("mboost", all = TRUE). Using the same name for an updated value is not a problem in this case, but may be in others, due to lazy evaluation employed by R. It is perfectly fine to modify an argument in many (most?) cases, and that is probably why the corresponding codetools check is not used by default, hence the all = TRUE.

@hofnerb hofnerb merged commit 7e252a2 into boost-R:master Jul 6, 2016
@hofnerb hofnerb deleted the patch-1 branch July 6, 2016 11:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants