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

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

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:19:56 -0400, "Liaw, Andy" <andy_liaw@merck.com> wrote :

>> From: Duncan Murdoch
>[snip]
>> 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



R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel 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