[Rd] RE: [R] debugging non-visible functions
Liaw, Andy
andy_liaw at merck.com
Wed Oct 13 16:19:56 CEST 2004
> 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.
Best,
Andy
More information about the R-devel
mailing list