[Duncan Murdoch]
>I'll fix it.
Thanks, Duncan. While I quite understand that more serious work should
be done within real sources files, fixing and editing is still useful
for quick, evanescent interactive toying.
>edit() is a hack, so you should expect problems. You're better off
>keeping your source in an editor and using source() to get it.
This is not the first time I read such a remark. Maybe it would be
worth a note within ?edit.
>There is no way it could preserve the environment of a function [...]
That might be worth another note within ?edit.
Speaking of which, this "x <- edit()" usage (interactively suggested by
fix when it fails to re-parse the result of edition) is not covered by
?edit. I mean that by reading ?edit, one does not get information about
what a mere "edit()" does. It might be useful that ?edit says a few
words about this particular usage.
The remaining of this message quotes the original message:
[François Pinard]
>Hi, people. This is about R 2.3.0 under Linux.
>It seems that edit() may change a function environment. Here is
>a transcript, more comments follow:
>======================================================================>
>>fix(f)
>>f
>function ()
>{
>}
>>fix(f)
>Erreur dans edit(name, file, title, editor) :
> une erreur s'est produite à la ligne 3
> utilisez une commande du genre
> x <- edit()
> pour corriger
>>f <- edit()
>>f
>function ()
>{
>}
><environment: base>
>======================================================================<
>The initial ``fix(f)`` called an editor, which I exited right away. For
>the second ``fix(f)``, I used the editor for adding a slash between
>braces, and exited. The French comment produced by R speaks about an
>error at line 3 and suggests using something like ``x <- edit()`` to
>make a correction. On the third call to the editor, I remove the slash
>and exit. Now, the environment of the function became "base".
>This has unfortunate effects when editing a more substantial function,
>because for example, "stats" or "utils" is not readily available anymore
>after the editing. Is it reasonable to suggest an improvement in the
>mechanics of edit(), for alleviating this drawback ?
--
François Pinard http://pinard.progiciels-bpi.ca
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
