From andy_liaw at merck.com  Wed Oct 13 16:19:56 2004
From: andy_liaw at merck.com (Liaw, Andy)
Date: Wed Oct 13 16:20:23 2004
Subject: [Rd] RE: [R] debugging non-visible functions
Message-ID: <3A822319EB35174CA3714066D590DCD504AF852E@usrymx25.merck.com>

> 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.

Best,
Andy


[Rd] RE: [R] debugging non-visible functions
Liaw, Andy