> I've recently come across two pieces of code using calls to
> callGeneric() inside the definition of a method.
> In both cases, it appears to me that the callGeneric call could be
> replaced with a "real" call to the generic, say foo(x) instead of
> callGeneric(x) inside method foo.
> My understanding from the docs is that when called with arguments, it
> is just like calling the actual generic. Clear enough, but what does
> this provide that just calling the actual generic doesn't?
> Similarly, when would one want to make the recursive call that results
> from calling callGeneric with no args?
> + seth
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >