On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:10:31 -0700,
Henrik Bengtsson (HB) wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Kevin R.
Coombeskrcoom...@mdacc.tmc.edu wrote:
[1] I agree that sessionInfo() can be taken further.
[2] I even more strongly agree that it would be a bad idea to allow
packages
to
Friedrich Leisch wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:10:31 -0700,
Henrik Bengtsson (HB) wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Kevin R.
Coombeskrcoom...@mdacc.tmc.edu wrote:
[1] I agree that sessionInfo() can be taken further.
[2] I even more strongly agree that it would be a bad
Hi,
sessionInfo() has been proven really useful, but you still often have
to ask for additional information in order to help troubleshooting.
For instance, for troubleshooting the aroma.affymetrix, it is very
helpful to know what the current working directory is, for other
packages certain system
The danger is that it could introduce bugs into the process
of reporting bugs.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Henrik Bengtssonh...@stat.berkeley.edu wrote:
Hi,
sessionInfo() has been proven really useful, but you still often have
to ask for additional information in order to help
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Gabor
Grothendieckggrothendi...@gmail.com wrote:
The danger is that it could introduce bugs into the process
of reporting bugs.
If you mean that sessionInfo() will result in an error, that is easily
solved by a tryCatch() statement. Timeouts are harder. One
[1] I agree that sessionInfo() can be taken further.
[2] I even more strongly agree that it would be a bad idea to allow
packages to add features that cause the base sessionInfo() function to fail.
Why not add an extra function called something like
packageSessionInfo() that would provide the
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Kevin R.
Coombeskrcoom...@mdacc.tmc.edu wrote:
[1] I agree that sessionInfo() can be taken further.
[2] I even more strongly agree that it would be a bad idea to allow packages
to add features that cause the base sessionInfo() function to fail.
Why not add an
