Good points. In my case I also want to add an extra class to the
condition, before re-throwing it.
Sorry, this was not clear in my first email, I actually just realized it now.
Gabor
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 6:43 PM wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2018, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
>
> > I don't want to return a
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
I don't want to return a value, I want to interrupt the computation,
that's why I need to re-throw .
But before getting back to the user I want to run some cleanup code.
If it is just cleanup you want then a finally clause or on.exit should
do, and will
Great! invokeRestart("abort") is a life saver again, the second time this week!
Thanks much!
Gabor
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 6:37 PM wrote:
>
> The internal code does more or less
>
> signalCondition(e) ## allows for (another) handler
> cat("\n") ## cleans up console
>
The internal code does more or less
signalCondition(e) ## allows for (another) handler
cat("\n") ## cleans up console
invokeRestart("abort") ## jump to 'abort' restart if not handled
[for back compatibility it also runs the error option code if that is
set, but that
I don't want to return a value, I want to interrupt the computation,
that's why I need to re-throw .
But before getting back to the user I want to run some cleanup code.
G.
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 5:59 PM Iñaki Úcar wrote:
>
> El sáb., 28 jul. 2018 a las 18:30, Gábor Csárdi
> () escribió:
> >
> >
El sáb., 28 jul. 2018 a las 18:30, Gábor Csárdi
() escribió:
>
> Anyone knows a way to re-throw a caught interrupt condition, so that
> it behaves just like the original one? I.e. no error message is
> printed, but the execution is stopped of course. With just calling
> stop in the error handler, i
