Re: [Rd] validity testing as part of '@<-'

From: Duncan Murdoch <>
Date: Thu 21 Sep 2006 - 23:21:46 GMT

On 9/21/2006 5:29 PM, Parlamis Franklin wrote:
> 'methods' package feature request / discussion starter:
> perhaps a call to 'validObject' should occur at part of any slot
> replacement operation (and the operation not be carried out if it
> would invalidate the object)? this may prevent the need for
> prophylactic 'validObject' calls in other user-defined functions. in
> the example below, the slot assignment occurs even though it
> invalidates the object. the 'show' method then fails somewhat deep
> in a subsequently-called coercion method.
> library(Matrix)
> test <- Matrix(1:4+0.1, nrow = 2, dimnames = list(letters[1:2],
> LETTERS[1:2]))
> test@Dimnames <- list(1:100)
> test
> direct slot access (without a validity check) seems an easily
> accessible loophole to S4 object "guarantees".

Often changing a single slot puts the object into a temporarily invalid state; others need to be changed consistently before it could pass the validity test.

Perhaps you could handle this case by wrapping all the calls in some sort of wrapper, e.g.

atomic( {obj@slot1 <- 1

          obj@slot2 <- 2 })

but requiring that would break tons of existing code, and turning on validObject tests everywhere would slow things down a lot. Isn't it easier to just sprinkle a few more validObject() calls into your code?

Duncan Murdoch mailing list Received on Fri Sep 22 09:23:10 2006

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.1.8, at Fri 22 Sep 2006 - 01:30:08 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.