On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Henrik Bengtsson <h...@biostat.ucsf.edu>wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Hervé Pagès <hpa...@fhcrc.org> wrote:
> > Hi Kasper,
> >
> >
> > On 07/10/2013 10:50 AM, Kasper Daniel Hansen wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Dan Tenenbaum <dtene...@fhcrc.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Michael Lawrence
> >>> <lawrence.mich...@gene.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> If it's an informational message, like one you might log, use
> message().
> >>>
> >>> If
> >>>>
> >>>> you're rendering an object as text, like in a show method, use cat().
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Another thing to consider is that messages can be suppressed with
> >>> suppressMessages() but cat() output cannot.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sure. What I cannot decide is whether that is good or bad.
> >
> >
> > If you use message(), then you don't need to have a 'verbose' arg since
> > the messages can be suppressed with suppressMessages(). That makes
> > your code simpler/cleaner. However this approach is only appropriate if
> > you want your function to be verbose by default. If you want it to be
> > quiet by default then I don't know what's best. 'verbose' arg + cat() or
> > 'verbose' arg + message() ? That's the question...
>
> You can also imagine different amounts of verbose, so not always TRUE or
> FALSE.
>
> About Kasper's original question, I'd also say use message(). I've
> recently done this transition in several of my packages (mostly via
> the Verbose class in R.utils). I've thought about this for a long
> time, but what made me do the transition is the fact that many of the
> literate programming tools in R echoes the standard output in code
> chunks, but not the standard errors. I don't want my verbose/log
> messages to be displayed in reports/vignettes (by default)
>
Henrik (and others),
thanks for your contribution to this, I know you have spent a lot of time
thinking about things like this.
I think it would be nice to try to be somewhat uniform between packages on
this issue, as it is always nice for users to not have every package be
slightly different.
I use verbose messages to inform the user that something is happening, and
for my own (and the user) debugging / analysis optimization. These days I
tend to have most of my slow code running in parallel using mclapply, I
could not (easily) figure out how to have a progress report. I tend to do
the following
verbose supports more than one level, but the standard level is 1
equivalent to verbose=TRUE. Higher levels is really only for extensive
debugging.
default is always FALSE
I have started to include "[function name]" in each message, like
"[bumphunterEngine] message", which I find very useful
many verbose messages include some timing, like "... done in X secs"
which I find very useful for development.
A given function tend to only have one verbose level, but I then use the
following paradigm
... inside some function ...
subverbose = max(as.integer(verbose) - 1L, 0L)
helpfunction( ..., verbose = subverbose)
ie. higher levels of verbose just propogates verbose to sub functions.
many functions do not have verbose, only stuff that can take a long time
I only use verbose around the parts of a function that really take a long
time, ie. it can take a "while" before the first message appear
Because of this, I tend to actually like to have the messages printed in
the console (and since default is FALSE, I don't see it in vignettes unless
I want to), and was therefore not too happy to see that message() print on
stderr.
Now, there are many ways of doing it, but as I started this email with, I
do think there is some value to having a single (a few) paradigms for user
ease.
Kasper
> /Henrik
>
> >
> >
> > H.
> >
> >>
> >> Kasper
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Just my opinion,
> >>>> Michael
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Kasper Daniel Hansen <
> >>>> kasperdanielhan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Should I use cat() or message() (or something else) for
> >>>>> if(verbose) cat("my message\n")
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> Kasper
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> >>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> >>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Hervé Pagès
> >
> > Program in Computational Biology
> > Division of Public Health Sciences
> > Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
> > 1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514
> > P.O. Box 19024
> > Seattle, WA 98109-1024
> >
> > E-mail: hpa...@fhcrc.org
> > Phone: (206) 667-5791
> > Fax: (206) 667-1319
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
>
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
_______________________________________________
Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
