From @mredd @ending from gm@il@com  Mon Nov 26 16:05:44 2018
From: @mredd @ending from gm@il@com (Andrew Redd)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 08:05:44 -0700
Subject: [Rd] [tryExcept] New try Function
In-Reply-To: <CAEEE=psD_zkX8skKhJd_uTu_CXqBi7HjV_FhiKYfUyh2NwF0Hg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ADFC5C3F-9849-4AF3-86B0-017615152298@gmail.com>
 <97C3B2B2-A8C8-4A6B-B609-1964F16A4A1C@dans.knaw.nl>
 <CAEEE=psD_zkX8skKhJd_uTu_CXqBi7HjV_FhiKYfUyh2NwF0Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK_CNyYzrKiu38QZT5FL_gdOVMG8iwnJETQWkodbbdjb167GHQ@mail.gmail.com>

I have two related packages that are already submitted to CRAN but are
awaiting approval.  They are part of the R Documentation Task Force efforts
to improve documentation.  The exact function you are referring to I have
called `catch_condition()` and included it in my `testextra` package.  You
might also want to check out the `pkgcond` package which facilitates
creating informative conditions (errors, warnings, and messages).  These
conditions are automatically classed to tell you where the error is coming
from, the package and function, including class for reference methods.

https://github.com/RDocTaskForce/testextra
https://github.com/RDocTaskForce/pkgcond

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 7:48 AM Ernest Benedito <ebeneditos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Emil,
>
> First, thanks for the response. As you mentioned, a lot of times tryCatch
> does the work, as you can return a value. However, sometimes it is useful
> to assign several variables when an error occurs. You could do it with <<-,
> but I prefer to reduce it's usage unless completely necessary.
>
> I guess that the attachment was missed in the moderation. Here it is the
> function:
>
> tryExcept <- function (expr,
>                        except = {})
> {
>   doTryExcept <- function(expr, parentenv) {
>     .Internal(.addCondHands("error", list(NULL), parentenv,
>                             environment(), FALSE))
>     expr
>   }
>   parentenv <- parent.frame()
>   doTryExcept(return(expr), parentenv)
>   invisible(except)
> }
>
> As you can see, the tryExcept function uses a simplified version of the
> tryCatch architecture, but it allows you to pass by a second expression
> that is evaluated in case an error occurs during the evaluation of the
> first expression. It could even work as an infix operator:
>
> `%except%` <- tryExcept
>
> # dummy example
> {foo <- "foo"} %except% {foo <- "foo bar"}
> print(foo) # "foo"
>
> { foo <- "foo"
>   stop()
> } %except% {
>   foo <- "foo bar"
> }
> print(foo) # "foo bar"
>
> It's main downside is that you are not able to handle the error occured,
> although there is the possibility to add a 'silent' parameter such as in
> 'try' in order to print the error if desired. All in all, this would be a
> function for simple error handling, but I think it would be practical, and
> you can always move to tryCatch if you need a more complex error handling.
>
> I will be looking forward to hearing your insights.
>
> Best,
> Ernest Benedito
>
> Missatge de Emil Bode <emil.bode at dans.knaw.nl> del dia dv., 23 de nov.
> 2018
> a les 13:17:
>
> > Hi Ernest,
> >
> > To start: I don't see an attachment, I think they're not (always) allowed
> > on this mailing-list. If you want to send something, text is your safest
> > bet.
> > But regarding the issue of tryCatch: I think you're not fully using what
> > it already can do. In almost all circumstances I've encountered the
> > following works fine:
> > res <- tryCatch(expr, error = function(cond) {
> >   # a bunch of code
> >   # Some value to be stored in res
> > })
> > The only difference is that now "#abunchofcode" is run from inside a
> > function, which means you're working in a different environment, and if
> you
> > want to assign values to other variables you need to use <<- or assign.
> > For a modified function, I think it would be nice if there's a way to
> > supply an expression instead of a function, so that evaluation (and
> > assignment!) takes place in the same environment as the main code in the
> > tryCatch (in expr). Is that what you made?
> > And with the current tryCatch, you could use something like this:
> > res <- tryCatch(expr, error=function(e) evalq({
> >   # a bunch of code
> >   # Some value for res
> > }, envir=parent.frame(4))) # The 4 is because some internal functions are
> > involved, parent.frame(4) is the same environment as used by expr
> >
> > Although this is cumbersome, and it gets even more cumbersome if you want
> > to access the error-object in #abunchofcode, or use #abunchofcode to
> return
> > to a higher level, so I get it you're looking for a more elegant
> solution.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Emil Bode
> >
> > ?On 23/11/2018, 08:49, "R-devel on behalf of Ernest Benedito" <
> > r-devel-bounces at r-project.org on behalf of ebeneditos at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi everyone,
> >
> >     When dealing with errors, sometimes I want to run a bunch of code
> when
> > an error occurs.
> >     For now I usually use a structure such as:
> >
> >     res <- tryCatch(expr, error = function(cond) cond) # or try(expr)
> >
> >     if (inherits(res, ?error?)) # or inherits(res, ?try-error?)
> >       # a bunch of code
> >
> >     I though it would be useful to have a function that does this
> > naturally, so I came up with the attached function.
> >
> >     I would be glad to hear your insights and if you think it would make
> > sense to add this function to R.
> >
> >     Best regards,
> >     Ernest
> >     ______________________________________________
> >     R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> >     https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> >
> >
>
>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]



[Rd] [tryExcept] New try Function
Andrew Redd