[Rd] Am I missing something about debugging?
ross at biostat.ucsf.edu
Tue Jan 2 23:46:06 CET 2007
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 17:24 -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> I don't think you're missing anything with the debug() function. It
> needs updating.
> I don't think there's any structural reason why you shouldn't be able to
> do the things you're talking about in R, but they haven't been
That's good to know. I was wondering if the lexical scoping was
complicating things. At least the way I think of it, every call has two
sets of (potentially) nested environments: the lexical scopes of the
function definition and the dynamic scopes of the call. But since the
dynamic scopes are available, using them seems possible.
> Mark Bravington put together a package (called debug) that does more
> than debug() does, but I haven't used it much, and I don't know if it
> does what you want.
It looked to me as if it was some help, but no advance on the
investigating dynamic frames front.
> I recently added things to the R parser to keep track of connections
> between R code and source files; that was partly meant as a first step
> towards improving the debugging facilities. I'd be happy to help anyone
> who wants to do the hard work, but I don't think I'll be able to work on
> it before next summer. (If you do decide to work on it, please let me
> know, just in case I do get a chance: no point duplicating effort.)
I didn't even realize such a facility was needed, which shows how much I
know! Working on the debugger is probably not in my job description,
unless I get really annoyed.
The smalltalk debugger is the standard by which I judge all others; it's
just amazing. You can go up and down the stack, graphically examine
variables (and follow links), and change code in the middle of debugging
and then continue.
More information about the R-devel