[R] no line number from error

[Ross Boylan]

On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 19:29 -0400, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 24/04/2014, 6:40 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
> >   > r1 <- totalEffect.all(dsim, simjob)
> >   Error: attempt to apply non-function
> >   > traceback()
> >   1: totalEffect.all(dsim, simjob)
> >   > class(totalEffect.all)
> >   [1] "function"
> > How can I find out where in totalEffect.all the error is arising?
> > My only theory for the lack of line number was that totaEffect.all was
> > not a function; it is.  Further, previous calls to the function worked,
> > and errors in it produced line numbers.  After fixing a previous error
> > I'm now getting this.
> >
> > All my code is sourced from files except for the driver.  The driver
> > code is in the same file that defines totalEffect.all.
> 
> I don't understand this.  If totalEffect.all is in a file that is not 
> sourced, where did it come from?
totalEffect is sourced; by "driver" I meant the surrounding code that
sets up dsim and simjob and calls totalEffect.
> 
> Generally the rule is that if you source a function from a file you'll 
> get line number information attached to it, so you should see a line 
> number reported when an error occurs, or during debugging.  There are 
> exceptions:  you can turn this off, and by default, it is turned off for 
> functions defined in packages (but you can turn it on if you re-install 
> from source).
I'm not in a package.

BTW, I encountered several more instances of the error--that is, from
different spots in the code--and never got a line number.

Ross
> 
> >
> > In this particular case I stepped through with the debugger and found
> > that in the  line
> > accums[[m]]$delta$accum(up - down, data)
> >
> > the delta object was NULL and so accum is not a function on it.  But I
> > hope there's a better way to locate an error.
> 
> If the line that triggered this error was in a function that had line 
> number information, it sounds like it might be a bug.  Can you simplify 
> it down to a simple reproducible example that I could look at?
> 
> Duncan Murdoch
>