I think Hervé's idea was just that if switch can evaluate arguments
selectively, so can stopifnot(). But switch() is .Primitive, so does it from C.
I think it is almost a no-brainer to implement a sequential stopifnot if
dropping to C code is allowed. In R it gets trickier, but how about this:
Stopifnot <- function(...)
{
n <- length(match.call()) - 1
for (i in 1:n)
{
nm <- as.name(paste0("..",i))
if (!eval(nm)) stop("not all true")
}
}
Stopifnot(2+2==4)
Stopifnot(2+2==5, print("Hey!!!") == "Hey!!!")
Stopifnot(2+2==4, print("Hey!!!") == "Hey!!!")
Stopifnot(T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,F,T)
> On 15 May 2017, at 15:37 , Martin Maechler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm still curious about Hervé's idea on using switch() for the
> issue.
--
Peter Dalgaard, Professor,
Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School
Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Phone: (+45)38153501
Office: A 4.23
Email: [email protected] Priv: [email protected]
______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
