I am totally for the implementation of correct generalizations of operators (such as the v[-ix] that you mention in your presentation when ix has length 0).

I wonder why the R Core team is so uninterested in these improvements…

Also was happy to learn the origin of the pqR name… I thought the name was *purely* based on the alphabetical order of the letters involved :-)

]]>I plan to implement a number of other language extensions, at which point I’ll be better able to see what possible implementation or compatibility problems there are for the whole set. That might be a better time to make more formal proposals.

You can see some of these plans (which may not exactly match what I eventually implement) at http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~radford/ftp/pqR-Rusers.pdf

]]>http://www.r-bloggers.com/get-involved-with-the-r-consortium/ ]]>

I told them about the new parser in pqR about a year ago, and offered to help with incorporating it into R Core, in a message to the r-devel list, which you can see at https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2015-September/071777.html

I received no response from R Core whatsoever.

I’ll probably post another message to r-devel in a few days, after I’ve put up a couple more blog posts on features in the new version of pqR. But obviously I have no expectation that R Core will do anything.

]]>So the question is whether you like the fact that M[1:n,1:10] is a matrix when n is greater than 1 but a simple vector when n happens to be 1. In particular, suppose you assign this value, with A <- M[1:n,1:10]. Do you like the fact that A[i,j] will then produce an error if n happened to be 1?

]]>