From murdoch at stats.uwo.ca  Mon Oct 19 00:49:30 2009
From: murdoch at stats.uwo.ca (Duncan Murdoch)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:49:30 -0400
Subject: [Rd] Bug with .First  in R 2.10
In-Reply-To: <62C82B39B8A85E4B95A18F7F7B852F870550DC1894@exvic-mbx03.nexus.csiro.au>
References: <62C82B39B8A85E4B95A18F7F7B852F870550DC1894@exvic-mbx03.nexus.csiro.au>
Message-ID: <4ADB9B7A.1070607@stats.uwo.ca>

On 18/10/2009 6:20 PM, Mark.Bravington at csiro.au wrote:
> Under R2.10.0 beta (2009-10-14 r50082) my .First does not run reliably. I reported this last week, but not reproducibly, and it seemed to go away, so I thought it might be installation-related. But it has now recurred reproducibly, at least on my machine.
> 
> The website ftp://ftp.csiro.au/MarkBravington contains two .RData files each containing (only) a .First. One of them does what it should, and one of them doesn't. Confusingly, the OK one will actually trigger an error message for you, because it tries to do things that are specific to my machines. The not-OK one says "skipping .First", as below, and you'll see why it shouldn't be doing that. Obvioulsy, the files need renaming before you can test them.
> 
> I haven't been able to condense the .First to something more succinct that shows the same fault; saving a modified .First frequently makes the problem go away, seemingly regardless of what the change is.
> 
> The transcript from the not-OK version is given below

I can reproduce the problem running the .First in the notOK.RData file. 
  (I don't need to rename it; just loading that file and explicitly 
running .First() will do it.)

However, if I dump the function and source it, the problem goes away. 
So I suspect there is something wrong in the notOK.RData file.  How did 
you create it?

Duncan Murdoch



[Rd] Bug with .First in R 2.10
Duncan Murdoch