You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
<SomeClass> object generator
Public:
e: NULL
initialize: function ()
b: function ()
f: function ()
clone: function (deep = FALSE)
Active bindings:
g: function ()
d: function ()
Private:
.a: NULL
.c: NULL
Parent env: <environment: R_GlobalEnv>
Locked objects: TRUE
Locked class: FALSE
Portable: TRUE
Similarly, printing an instance yields:
<SomeClass>
Public:
b: function ()
clone: function (deep = FALSE)
d: active binding
e: NULL
f: function ()
g: active binding
initialize: function ()
Private:
.a: NULL
.c: NULL
It appears that the members under each access modifier are sorted alphabetically. Would it make sense for the default print method for instances to include an Active bindings section, similar to the object generator? I think this could improve clarity, especially for more complex classes and inheritance chains.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Consider the following class (i.e., with intentionally confusing member names):
Printing the generator yields:
Similarly, printing an instance yields:
It appears that the members under each access modifier are sorted alphabetically. Would it make sense for the default
print
method for instances to include anActive bindings
section, similar to the object generator? I think this could improve clarity, especially for more complex classes and inheritance chains.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: