[Rd] [EXTERNAL] Re: NOTE: multiple local function definitions for ?fun? with different formal arguments

[Izmirlian, Grant (NIH/NCI) [E]]

The note refers to the fact that the function named ‘fun’ appears to be defined in two different ways.

From: Hervé Pagès <hpages.on.github using gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 2:17 PM
To: Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan using gmail.com>; Izmirlian, Grant (NIH/NCI) [E] <izmirlig using mail.nih.gov>; r-devel using r-project.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Rd] NOTE: multiple local function definitions for ?fun? with different formal arguments


Thanks. Workarounds are interesting but... what's the point of the NOTE in the first place?

H.
On 2/4/24 09:07, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 04/02/2024 10:55 a.m., Izmirlian, Grant (NIH/NCI) [E] via R-devel wrote:

Well you can see that yeast is exactly weekday you have.  The way out is to just not name the result

I think something happened to your explanation...



toto <- function(mode)
{
     ifelse(mode == 1,
         function(a,b) a*b,
         function(u, v, w) (u + v) / w)
}

It's a bad idea to use ifelse() when you really want if() ... else ... .  In this case it works, but it doesn't always.  So the workaround should be


toto <- function(mode)
{
    if(mode == 1)
        function(a,b) a*b
    else
        function(u, v, w) (u + v) / w
}





________________________________
From: Grant Izmirlian <izmirlidroid using gmail.com><mailto:izmirlidroid using gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Feb 4, 2024, 10:44 AM
To: "Izmirlian, Grant (NIH/NCI) [E]" <izmirlig using mail.nih.gov><mailto:izmirlig using mail.nih.gov>
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] R-devel Digest, Vol 252, Issue 2

Hi,

I just ran into this 'R CMD check' NOTE for the first time:

* checking R code for possible problems ... NOTE
toto: multiple local function definitions for �fun� with different
   formal arguments

The "offending" code is something like this (simplified from the real code):

toto <- function(mode)
{
     if (mode == 1)
         fun <- function(a, b) a*b
     else
         fun <- function(u, v, w) (u + v) / w
     fun
}

Is that NOTE really intended? Hard to see why this code would be
considered "wrong".

I know it's just a NOTE but still...

I agree it's a false positive, but the issue is that you have a function object in your function which can't be called unconditionally.  The workaround doesn't create such an object.

Recognizing that your function never tries to call fun requires global inspection of toto(), and most of the checks are based on local inspection.

Duncan Murdoch

______________________________________________
R-devel using r-project.org<mailto:R-devel using r-project.org> mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

--

Hervé Pagès



Bioconductor Core Team

hpages.on.github using gmail.com<mailto:hpages.on.github using gmail.com>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are confident the content is safe.


	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]