Why is match.call useful?

依然范特西╮ 提交于 2019-12-03 01:33:44

One reason that is relevant here is that match.call captures the language of the call without evaluating it, and in this case it allows lm to treat some of the "missing" variables as "optional". Consider:

lm(x ~ y, data.frame(x=1:10, y=runif(10)))

Vs:

lm2 <- function (
  formula, data, subset, weights, na.action, method = "qr", 
  model = TRUE, x = FALSE, y = FALSE, qr = TRUE, singular.ok = TRUE, 
  contrasts = NULL, offset, ...
) {
  mf <- model.frame(
    formula = formula, data = data, subset = subset, weights = weights
  ) 
}
lm2(x ~ y, data.frame(x=1:10, y=runif(10)))
## Error in model.frame.default(formula = formula, data = data, subset = subset,  :
##   invalid type (closure) for variable '(weights)'

In lm2, since weights is "missing" but you still use it in weights=weights, R tries to use the stats::weights function which is clearly not what was intended. You could get around this by testing for missingness before you call model.frame, but at that point the match.call starts looking pretty good. Look at what happens if we debug the call:

debug(lm2)
lm2(x ~ y, data.frame(x=1:10, y=runif(10)))
## debugging in: lm2(x ~ y, data.frame(x = 1:10, y = runif(10)))
## debug at #5: {
##     mf <- model.frame(formula = formula, data = data, subset = subset,
##         weights = weights)
## }
Browse[2]> match.call()
## lm2(formula = x ~ y, data = data.frame(x = 1:10, y = runif(10)))

match.call doesn't involve the missing arguments at all.

You could argue that the optional arguments should have been made explicitly optional via default values, but that's not what happened here.

标签
易学教程内所有资源均来自网络或用户发布的内容,如有违反法律规定的内容欢迎反馈
该文章没有解决你所遇到的问题?点击提问,说说你的问题,让更多的人一起探讨吧!