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. Bummer! > > 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 > implemented. > 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. Ross ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
