I still observe this error and just want to ping this thread so we
don't forget it. Should I add this to
https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla/ so it's tracked there?
This thread in the archives:
* https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2019-June/078049.html
* https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel
> Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono via R-devel
> on Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:13:55 + writes:
> In 'conformMethod', there is another instance of
> omittedSig & .
> It just affects error message.
> Original:
> if(any(is.na(match(signature[omittedSig], c("ANY", "mi
In 'conformMethod', there is another instance of
omittedSig & .
It just affects error message.
Original:
if(any(is.na(match(signature[omittedSig], c("ANY", "missing") {
bad <- omittedSig & is.na(match(signature[omittedSig], c("ANY",
"missing")))
After r76756:
if(any(iiN <- i
.
> --
> Georgi Boshnakov
The 2nd patch I committed -- the one mostly to
rematchDefiniton() -- does exactly that: It uses .local()
calls where those argument *are* named which should be named.
==> hence the above example works fine there.
Martin
> -
) or maybe even
.local(object, , target).
--
Georgi Boshnakov
----------
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 22:44:49 +0200
From: Martin Maechler
To: R-devel , Henrik Bengtsson
Cc: Martin Maechler
Subject: Re: [Rd] methods package: A _R_CHECK_LENGTH_1_LOGIC2_=true
error
Mes
> Martin Maechler
> on Sat, 29 Jun 2019 12:05:49 +0200 writes:
> Martin Maechler
> on Sat, 29 Jun 2019 10:33:10 +0200 writes:
> peter dalgaard
> on Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:20:03 +0200 writes:
>>> > On 28 Jun 2019, at 16:03 , Martin Maechler
wrote:
>>>
> Martin Maechler
> on Sat, 29 Jun 2019 10:33:10 +0200 writes:
> peter dalgaard
> on Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:20:03 +0200 writes:
>> > On 28 Jun 2019, at 16:03 , Martin Maechler
wrote:
>> >
>> >> Henrik Bengtsson
>> >>on Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:00:
> peter dalgaard
> on Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:20:03 +0200 writes:
> > On 28 Jun 2019, at 16:03 , Martin Maechler
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Henrik Bengtsson
> >>on Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:00:39 -0700 writes:
> >
> >> Using:
> >>
> >> untrace(methods::conformMethod)
> >> at <- c(12,
> On 28 Jun 2019, at 16:03 , Martin Maechler wrote:
>
>> Henrik Bengtsson
>>on Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:00:39 -0700 writes:
>
>> Using:
>>
>> untrace(methods::conformMethod)
>> at <- c(12,4,3,2)
>> str(body(methods::conformMethod)[[at]])
>> ## language omittedSig <- omittedSig && (si
> Henrik Bengtsson
> on Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:00:39 -0700 writes:
> Using:
>
> untrace(methods::conformMethod)
> at <- c(12,4,3,2)
> str(body(methods::conformMethod)[[at]])
> ## language omittedSig <- omittedSig && (signature[omittedSig] != "missing")
> cc <- 0L
> trace(methods::confor
Using:
untrace(methods::conformMethod)
at <- c(12,4,3,2)
str(body(methods::conformMethod)[[at]])
## language omittedSig <- omittedSig && (signature[omittedSig] != "missing")
cc <- 0L
trace(methods::conformMethod, tracer = quote({
cc <<- cc + 1L
print(cc)
if (cc == 31) { ## manually identifi
> peter dalgaard
> on Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:23:14 +0200 writes:
> Henrik,
> If a minimal reprex is hard to construct, could you perhaps instrument
your version of R to include a browser() call at the start of the
> else if(!all(signature[omittedSig] == "missing")) {
Henrik,
If a minimal reprex is hard to construct, could you perhaps instrument your
version of R to include a browser() call at the start of the
else if(!all(signature[omittedSig] == "missing")) {
branch, run the code that triggers the issue for you (and must hit that branch)
and tell us
Ah, not quite: The logic is that if something has omittedSig and "missing" is
not the signature, those signatures get _set_ to missing. There's just a bit of
tap-dancing around to find exactly which they are so that there can be a
message about changing them.
-pd
> On 25 Jun 2019, at 09:44 , p
Argh! Yes you are right, the "fix" doesn't. And I fell into the same "hey it's
a vector so && has to be wrong"-trap. So this has to be reverted to something
that has at least failed unconspicuously for a decade Will do. Thanks to
Martin for remaining suspicious!
[This code was originally fr
**Maybe this bug needs to be understood further before applying the
patch because patch is most likely also wrong**
Because, from just looking at the expressions, I think neither the R
3.6.0 version:
omittedSig <- omittedSig && (signature[omittedSig] != "missing")
nor the patched version (I prop
> Henrik Bengtsson via R-core
> on Sun, 23 Jun 2019 11:29:58 -0700 writes:
> Thank you.
> To correct myself, I can indeed reproduce this with R --vanilla too.
> A reproducible example is:
> $ R --vanilla
> R version 3.6.0 Patched (2019-05-31 r76629) -- "Planting o
Thank you.
To correct myself, I can indeed reproduce this with R --vanilla too.
A reproducible example is:
$ R --vanilla
R version 3.6.0 Patched (2019-05-31 r76629) -- "Planting of a Tree"
...
> Sys.setenv("_R_CHECK_LENGTH_1_LOGIC2_" = "true")
> loadNamespace("oligo")
Error in omittedSig && (sign
This looks obvious enough, so I just committed your fix to R-devel and
R-patched.
I'm at the wrong machine for thorough testing, but at least it seems to build
OK. However, I sense some risk that this could uncover sleeping bugs elsewhere,
so watch out.
-pd
> On 22 Jun 2019, at 18:49 , Henrik
John,
> the 2008 book ...
I suspected that I had overlooked something simple. This fits the
bill.
> R 2.8.1
I have been using 2.7. I will update.
Thanks for the help.
Terry
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mai
Hi Terry,
Terry Therneau wrote:
I'm working on the next version of coxme, one step of which is converting
the bdsmatrix library from Splus to R. Actually, it is a conversion from
S4 methods as first described in the Green book to S4 methods as they
currently exist. Mostly it's going ok, but
Terry Therneau wrote:
> I'm working on the next version of coxme, one step of which is converting
> the bdsmatrix library from Splus to R. Actually, it is a conversion from
> S4 methods as first described in the Green book to S4 methods as they
> currently exist. Mostly it's going ok, but not
22 matches
Mail list logo
