On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Luke Tierney wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
>
>>> I am strongly opposed to locking in anything from the C internals of
>>> error handling that is not already part of the API. This is all very
>>> much subject to change and anything along the lines
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
>> I am strongly opposed to locking in anything from the C internals of
>> error handling that is not already part of the API. This is all very
>> much subject to change and anything along the lines you propose will
>> make that change more diffi
> I am strongly opposed to locking in anything from the C internals of
> error handling that is not already part of the API. This is all very
> much subject to change and anything along the lines you propose will
> make that change more difficult.
Let's discuss this in two separate parts, then. T
I am strongly opposed to locking in anything from the C internals of
error handling that is not already part of the API. This is all very
much subject to change and anything along the lines you propose will
make that change more difficult.
Condition handling was added to make this sort of thing p
Dear R developers,
this mail is basically a summary / clarification of some previous mails I sent
to this list last week (subject "Catching warning and error output"). Duncan
Murdoch pointed out that these were badly organized, and suggested I repost,
collecting the main points previously sprea
