RE: [Rd] RE: [R] debugging non-visible functions

From: Liaw, Andy <>
Date: Thu 14 Oct 2004 - 00:19:56 EST

> From: Duncan Murdoch

> For 2.1.0, would it be reasonable to extend debug() the way ? was
> extended? E.g. allow
> debug(plot(x))
> and have the debugging flag be set on the appropriate function,
> whatever and wherever it happens to be? There's some ambiguity with
> S3 methods (did you want to debug the generic or the method?), but I
> think defaulting to debugging of the method would be reasonable. (And
> I think ? needs to be extended to handle S3 methods too, but that's a
> different question.)
> Duncan Murdoch

The ambiguity could be quite real. I have a formula method that just does preprocessing, then call the default method. What do the debugger do then? I've run into situations that I wanted to debug both of them, but not at the same time. I just do what Gabor had suggested: debug(namespace:::function). Works for me.

Andy mailing list Received on Thu Oct 14 00:31:01 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri 18 Mar 2005 - 09:00:35 EST