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

From: Duncan Murdoch <>
Date: Thu 14 Oct 2004 - 00:38:01 EST

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:19:56 -0400, "Liaw, Andy" <> wrote :

>> 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.

I think the solution to this problem is to adopt a different model of the debugger, more like other source level debuggers: allow breakpoints to be set at particular locations (not just on function entry points), allow single stepping that enters (or doesn't) the evaluation of functions.

Duncan Murdoch mailing list Received on Thu Oct 14 00:54:26 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed 03 Nov 2004 - 22:45:21 EST