On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:03 AM Tomas Kalibera
wrote:
[...]
> As I said I think it would be wrong to use such function in code, but in
> principle isdebugged() could be changed to detect whether a given
> function will be debugged due to debug() or debugonce() or is currently
> being run in a deb
On 05/22/2018 06:07 PM, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 5:01 PM Tomas Kalibera
wrote:
[...]
Do you have a good use case when it would be useful to query/unset the
mark for debugonce?
Well, I suppose the same use cases when it is useful to query/unset the
other debug
mark.
I asked b
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 5:01 PM Tomas Kalibera
wrote:
[...]
> Do you have a good use case when it would be useful to query/unset the
> mark for debugonce?
Well, I suppose the same use cases when it is useful to query/unset the
other debug
mark.
To be more specific, in debug helpers for a tool th
debug(fun) marks "fun" for debugging, it makes sure that whenever "fun"
is called, the debugger is entered
undebug(fun) removes this mark; it won't stop any current debugging of
that function
isdebugged(fun) tells whether this mark is set or not; it does not tell
whether "fun" is currently runni
Gabor,
Others can speak to the origins of this more directly, but from what I
recall this has been true at least since I was working in this space on the
debugcall stuff a couple years ago. I imagine the reasoning is what you
would expect: a single bit of course can't tell R both that a function
