Yes, the behaviour of return() is absolutely consistent. I am wondering
though how many experienced R developers would predict the correct
return value just by looking at those code snippets.
On 11/21/20 12:33 AM, Gabriel Becker wrote:
And the related:
> f = function() stop(return("lol"))
> f()
[1] "lol"
I have a feeling all of this is just return() performing correctly
though. If there are already R CMD CHECK checks for this kind of thing
(I wasnt sure but I'm hearing from others there may be/are) that may be
(and/or may need to be) sufficient.
~G
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 3:27 PM Dénes Tóth <toth.de...@kogentum.hu
<mailto:toth.de...@kogentum.hu>> wrote:
Or even more illustratively:
uneval_after_return <- function(x) {
return(x) * stop("Not evaluated")
}
uneval_after_return(1)
# [1] 1
On 11/20/20 10:12 PM, Mateo Obregón wrote:
> Dear r-developers-
>
> After many years of using and coding in R and other languages, I
came across
> something that I think should be flagged by the parser:
>
> bug <- function (x) {
> return (x + 1) * 1000
> }
>> bug(1)
> [1] 2
>
> The return() call is not like any other function call that
returns a value to
> the point where it was called from. I think this should
straightforwardly be
> handled in the parser by flagging it as a syntactic error.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Mateo.
> --
> Mateo Obregón.
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel@r-project.org <mailto:R-devel@r-project.org> mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org <mailto:R-devel@r-project.org> mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
