On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Deepayan Sarkar <deepayan.sar...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Scott Kostyshak <skost...@princeton.edu> > wrote: >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Scott Kostyshak <skost...@princeton.edu> >> wrote: >>> Regarding the following extract of ?options: >>> ‘editor’: a non-empty string, or a function that is called with a >>> file path as argument. >>> >>> edit.default currently calls the function with three arguments: name, >>> file, and title. For example, running the following >> >> To be clear with what I view as problematic, note in the above that >> the documentation says the function is called with a file path as an >> argument, suggesting one argument; but in practice it is called with >> three arguments. >> >>> vimCmd <- 'vim -c "set ft=r"' >>> vimEdit <- function(file_) system(paste(vimCmd, file_)) >>> options(editor = vimEdit) >>> myls <- edit(ls) >>> >>> gives "Error in editor(name, file, title) : unused arguments (file, title)". >>> >>> The attached patch changes edit.default to call the editor function >>> with just the file path. There is at least one inconsistent behavior >>> that this patch causes in its current form. It does not obey the >>> following (from ?edit): >>> Calling ‘edit()’, with no arguments, will result in the temporary >>> file being reopened for further editing. >>> >>> I see two ways to address this: (1) add a getEdFile() function to >>> utils/edit.R that calls a function getEd() defined in edit.c that >>> returns DefaultFileName; or (2) this patch could be rewritten in C in >>> a new function in edit.c. >>> >>> Is there any interest in this patch? >>> If not, would there be interest in an update of the docs, either >>> ?options (stating the possibility that if 'editor' is a function, it >>> might be called with 'name', 'file', and 'title' arguments) or ?edit >>> ? >> >> Any interest in this patch? If not, would a patch for the >> documentation be considered? > > Given that edit() itself is called with the three arguments, it seems > more general to pass them to the editor function, and I don't see the > need for a special case. You can always write your function as > > vimEdit <- function(file_, ...) system(paste(vimCmd, file_))
Indeed, makes sense. > I will clarify the documentation. Great. Thanks a lot for taking the time to understand the issue. Best, Scott -- Scott Kostyshak Economics PhD Candidate Princeton University ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
