On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:19:56 -0400, "Liaw, Andy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>> From: Duncan Murdoch >[snip] >> For 2.1.0, would it be reasonable to extend debug() the way ? was >> extended? E.g. allow >> >> debug(plot(x)) >> >> and have the debugging flag be set on the appropriate function, >> whatever and wherever it happens to be? There's some ambiguity with >> S3 methods (did you want to debug the generic or the method?), but I >> think defaulting to debugging of the method would be reasonable. (And >> I think ? needs to be extended to handle S3 methods too, but that's a >> different question.) >> >> Duncan Murdoch > >The ambiguity could be quite real. I have a formula method that just does >preprocessing, then call the default method. What do the debugger do then? >I've run into situations that I wanted to debug both of them, but not at the >same time. I just do what Gabor had suggested: debug(namespace:::function). >Works for me. I think the solution to this problem is to adopt a different model of the debugger, more like other source level debuggers: allow breakpoints to be set at particular locations (not just on function entry points), allow single stepping that enters (or doesn't) the evaluation of functions. Duncan Murdoch ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
