As per Luke's instructions I've updated the [wishlist item][1]
to include the deparse-on-error issue, and also renamed it to
something more appropriate for its broader scope.
I do share Lionel's concern that the deparse-on-error issue
could get unnecessarily delayed in the hopes of finding a more
Can you add a wishlist item to bugzilla?
Thanks,
luke
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, Jennifer Bryan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am writing a test that consults the serialization version of an `.rds`
> file.
>
> An attractive way to get this is:
>
> tools:::get_serialization_version() # reports just version
>
> wh
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019, Martin Maechler wrote:
>> Daniel Chen
>> on Fri, 12 Jul 2019 13:53:21 -0500 writes:
>
>> Hi everyone:
>> I’m one of the interns at RStudio this summer working on a project that
>> helps teachers grade student code. I found an unexpected behaviour with
>
Hi Martin:
Yes, I totally made things worse (and blundered my first listserv post)
when things got converted from markdown...
For posterity (and clarity), I've reproduced the examples that show the
unexpected behaviour and the current workaround we've used.
Example 1: expected u == s to ret
We also have a few other suggestions and wishes about backtrace
storage and display on the one hand, and display of constructed calls
on the other hand. Perhaps it would be better to open a different
wishlist item for traceback() to keep the discussions focused?
FWIW I think deparsing backtraces l
> Daniel Chen
> on Fri, 12 Jul 2019 13:53:21 -0500 writes:
> Hi everyone:
> I’m one of the interns at RStudio this summer working on a project that
> helps teachers grade student code. I found an unexpected behaviour with
> the |==| operator when comparing |quote|d e
Hi,
I am writing a test that consults the serialization version of an `.rds`
file.
An attractive way to get this is:
tools:::get_serialization_version() # reports just version
which calls
.Internal(serializeInfoFromConn() # reports much more
but neither is truly exported for public use.
Is t
> Gabriel Becker
> on Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:29:28 -0700 writes:
> Hi Morgan,
> So if the goal is output identical to calling factor, one thing youc an
> do is construct and evaluate a call to the R-level factor function. That
> would work and be guaranteed to meet y
