>>>>> Gabriel Becker
>>>>> on Thu, 2 Mar 2023 14:37:18 -0800 writes:
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 2:02 PM Antoine Fabri
> <antoine.fa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks and good point about unspecified behavior. The way
>> it behaves now (when it doesn't ignore) is more
>> consistent with data.frame() though so I prefer that to a
>> "warn and ignore" behaviour:
>>
>> data.frame(a = 1, b = 2, 3)
>>
>> #> a b X3
>>
>> #> 1 1 2 3
>>
>>
>> data.frame(a = 1, 2, 3)
>>
>> #> a X2 X3
>>
>> #> 1 1 2 3
>>
>>
>> (and in general warnings make for unpleasant debugging so
>> I prefer when we don't add new ones if avoidable)
>>
> I find silence to be much more unpleasant in practice when
> debugging, myself, but that may be a personal preference.
+1
I also *strongly* disagree with the claim
" in general warnings make for unpleasant debugging "
That may be true for beginners (for whom debugging is often not really
feasible anyway ..), but somewhat experienced useRs should know
about
options(warn = 1) # or
options(warn = 2) # plus options(error = recover) #
or
tryCatch( ..., warning = ..)
or {even more}
Martin
--
Martin Maechler
ETH Zurich and R Core team
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
