Seth Falcon wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Investigating this new implementation I come across an issue in
>> conjuntion with using S4 classes and methods. try(expr) does not return an
>> object with attribute 'try-error' in case of method dispatch failure
>> in the wrapped expression which to me seems not
>> quite correct.
>>
>
> We've seen some similar issues but had not had time to track them
> down.
>
>
>> Examples to reproduce the observation:
>>
>
> It isn't S4 specific. The issue seems more about anonymous
> calls/functions.
>
> ll = list()
> ll[[1]] = function(x) stop("died")
>
> v = try(do.call(ll[[1]], list(1)), silent=TRUE)
> Error in as.list(call)[[1]] == "doTryCatch" :
> comparison (1) is possible only for atomic and list types
> > v
> Error: object "v" not found
>
> I don't fully understand why the call is being computed, but the
> following seems to get things going.
>
> + seth
>
> --- a/src/library/base/R/New-Internal.R
> +++ b/src/library/base/R/New-Internal.R
> @@ -7,7 +7,8 @@ try <- function(expr, silent = FALSE) {
> ## Patch up the call to produce nicer result for testing as
> ## try(stop(...)). This will need adjusting if the
> ## implementation of tryCatch changes.
> - if (as.list(call)[[1]] == "doTryCatch")
> + callFun <- as.list(call)[[1]]
> + if (is.name(callFun) && callFun == "doTryCatch")
> call <- sys.call(-4)
> dcall <- deparse(call)[1]
> prefix <- paste("Error in", dcall, ": ")
>
>
Good catch, Seth. The code still looks a bit clunky though, and I wonder
if this wouldn't be nicer:
if (identical(call[[1]], quote(doTryCatch))) call <- sys.call(-4)
I.e., the thing that is clearly wrong is the use of "==" on something
that is not necessarily a simple name, but the use of as.list seems
unnecessary and comparisons between strings and names is a bit awkward too.
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
