thx to everyone for having listened to my suggestion and reasoning
through it, even though it won't fly.
maybe, as a last word, let me add a short appeal that is more generic:
R is a tough programming language for beginners. anything that
allows a user to request additional error-checking, and/o
first, I think it would be more useful if it had an optional character
string, so users could write
stopifnot( is.matrix(m), "m is not a matrix" )
stop() allows for arbitrary strings
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mai
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 3:30 AM, ivo welch wrote:
> thx, deepayan: how is stopifnot better than
> if (!all(...)) stop()
But I am not claiming that it is!
If you think it is not useful, then don't use stopifnot(), use stop()
instead, and tell your students to do so as well.
> given that we
On 08/20/2013 11:41 AM, ivo welch wrote:
A second enhancement would be a "smart string", which knows that
everything inside {{...}} should be evaluated.
stopifnot( is.matrix(m), "m is not a matrix, but a {{class(m)}}" )
a variant with more traditional syntax might be
if (!is.matrix(m))
> first, I think it would be more useful if it had an optional character
> string, so users could write
>
> stopifnot( is.matrix(m), "m is not a matrix" )
>
Another option is to just generate better error messages automatically, e.g.:
> library(assertthat)
> x <- 1:10
> assert_that(is.matrix(x)
functionality is nice. syntax is weird. I think I would have
preferred an "interpolate" function call.
stop( i("class is `class(pi)` and $pi") )
three typing letters, too, and more logical. most importantly, I wish
we had some form of this in base R from the outset--whatever it is--so
that m
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:00 PM, ivo welch wrote:
> character string at the end of an existing function, stopifnot(). (2)
> I think "estrings" (that behave like characters but are interpolated
> before printout) are useful in the same way perl interpolated strings
> are useful.
The gsubfn packag
thx, deepayan: how is stopifnot better than
if (!all(...)) stop()
given that we have stopifnot() and I have seen it used often, I think
my two suggestions would make it better.
thx, michael: the %and% and %or% constructs are indeed relics of my
perl background. my own definition is
`%and%`
If all you care about is emulating static type checking, then you can also
accomplish the same thing with lambda.r using type constraints on function
definitions.
e.g.
> f(m) %::% matrix : matrix
> f(m) %as% { m }
> f(as.data.frame(matrix(rnorm(12),nrow=3)))
Error in UseFunction("f", ...) : No
boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On
> Behalf
> Of ivo welch
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:42 AM
> To: r-devel@r-project.org List
> Subject: [Rd] Extending suggestion for stopifnot
>
> I am using a variant of stopifnot a lot. can I suggest that b
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:41 AM, ivo welch wrote:
> I am using a variant of stopifnot a lot. can I suggest that base R
> extends its functionality? I know how to do this for myself. this is
> a suggestion for beginners and students. I don't think it would break
> anything.
>
> first, I think
On Aug 20, 2013, at 14:41, ivo welch wrote:
> A second enhancement would be a "smart string", which knows that
> everything inside {{...}} should be evaluated.
I think one the HTML templating libraries (whisker or mustache or some such)
provides something not unlike this. Perhaps take a look
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:11 AM, ivo welch wrote:
> I am using a variant of stopifnot a lot. can I suggest that base R
> extends its functionality? I know how to do this for myself. this is
> a suggestion for beginners and students. I don't think it would break
> anything.
>
> first, I think
I am using a variant of stopifnot a lot. can I suggest that base R
extends its functionality? I know how to do this for myself. this is
a suggestion for beginners and students. I don't think it would break
anything.
first, I think it would be more useful if it had an optional character
string,
14 matches
Mail list logo
