>>>>> 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