On 1/2/07, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/1/2007 12:59 PM, Charles C. Berry wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Jan 2007, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> >
> >> A few comments thrown in, and some general comments at the bottom.
> >>
> >> On 1/1/2007 1:28 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> >>> This is my 20
Dear Brian / Thomas:
May I suggest a "cheap" and amateurish solution, obviously without much
knowledge or intelligence about the subject?
As a non-statistician user of R, maybe a hook functionality at strategic
places could provide some flexibility without too much pain. I think
replacing the
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, ivo welch wrote:
>
> As a non-statistician user of R, maybe a hook functionality at strategic
> places could provide some flexibility without too much pain. I think
> replacing the standard output from summary.lm would be a bad idea (it
> could easily create errors downstream,
I would like to be able to trace execution into calls below the current
function, or to follow execution as calls return. This is roughly the
distinction between "step" and "next" in many debuggers.
I would also like to be able to switch to a location further up the call
stack than the location a
I don't think you're missing anything with the debug() function. It
needs updating.
I don't think there's any structural reason why you shouldn't be able to
do the things you're talking about in R, but they haven't been
implemented.
Mark Bravington put together a package (called debug) that do
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 17:24 -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> I don't think you're missing anything with the debug() function. It
> needs updating.
Bummer!
>
> I don't think there's any structural reason why you shouldn't be able to
> do the things you're talking about in R, but they haven't been
On 1/2/2007 5:46 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 17:24 -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> I don't think you're missing anything with the debug() function. It
>> needs updating.
> Bummer!
>> I don't think there's any structural reason why you shouldn't be able to
>> do the things you'r
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 18:44 -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 1/2/2007 5:46 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > The smalltalk debugger is the standard by which I judge all others; it's
> > just amazing. You can go up and down the stack, graphically examine
> > variables (and follow links), and change
While a Smalltalk-style debugger would be pretty awesome, I suspect
R's semantics would make restartable exceptions pretty difficult and
R's current implementation would make getting the continuation-like
object you'd need pretty difficult, at least across the range of
platforms supported by R.
A
Rather than using debug, I generally like using recover. When called, it
shows the call stack, and you can pick what to view. Using
option(error=recover) triggers it on errors. You can't step through code as
when using browser(), but I find jumping to different points on the call
stack to be more
10 matches
Mail list logo
