Re: [R] eval(parse(text vs. get when accessing a function

From: jim holtman <>
Date: Sat 06 Jan 2007 - 00:22:21 GMT

I agree with what you are saying. That is the reason I have "What is the problem you are trying to solve" on my signature.

The other way of saying that is "Tell me what you want to do, not how you want to do it."

On 1/5/07, Thomas Lumley <> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Ramon Diaz-Uriarte wrote:
> > I see, this is direct way of dealing with the problem. However, you
> first need
> > to build the f list, and you might not know about that ahead of time.
> For
> > instance, if I build a function so that the only thing that you need to
> do to
> > use my function g is to call your function "f.something", and then pass
> > the "something".
> >
> > I am still under the impression that, given your answer,
> > using "eval(parse(text" is not your preferred way. What are the
> possible
> > problems (if there are any, that is). I guess I am puzzled by "rethink
> > whether that was really the right question".
> >
> There are definitely situations where parse() is necessary or convenient,
> or we wouldn't provide it. For example, there are some
> formula-manipulation problems where it really does seem to be the best
> solution.
> The point of my observation was that it is relatively common for people to
> ask about parse() solutions to problems, but relatively rare to see them in
> code by experienced R programmers. The 'rethink the question' point is that
> a narrowly-posed programming problem may suggest parse() as the answer, when
> thinking more broadly about what you are trying to do may allow a completely
> different approach [the example of lists is a common one].
> The problem with eval(parse()) is not primarily one of speed. A problem
> with parse() is than manipulating text strings is easy to mess up, since
> text has so much less structure than code. A problem with eval() is that it
> is too powerful -- since it can do anything, it is harder to keep track of
> what it is doing.
> In one sense this is just a style issue, but I still think my comment is
> good advice. If you find yourself wanting to use parse() it is a good idea
> to stop and think about whether there is a better way to do it. Often, there
> is. Sometimes, there isn't.
> -thomas
> Thomas Lumley Assoc. Professor, Biostatistics
> University of Washington, Seattle
> ______________________________________________
> mailing list
> PLEASE do read the posting guide
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.

Jim Holtman
Cincinnati, OH
+1 513 646 9390

What is the problem you are trying to solve?

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________ mailing list
PLEASE do read the posting guide
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Received on Sat Jan 06 22:37:23 2007

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 Sat 06 Jan 2007 - 16:30:25 GMT.

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