I am more interested why something like this has not made its way into R core as a first step to type checking *for everyone*. (I could imagine that an option would turn on and off some automatic stopifnot like checking given a standardized annotation form [type, dim].)
is it because there is not much wider interest and desirability (so even a basic working implementation would not be pulled into R by the powers that are in charge), or is it because the work is too difficult and no one had time to work on it? On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 8:50 AM Hadley Wickham <[email protected]> wrote: > You might be interested in Jim Hester’s old experiment that used ? - > https://github.com/jimhester/types > > Hadley > > On Wednesday, September 17, 2025, IVO I WELCH <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Suggestion for Syntax Sugar: >> >> Would it make sense to permit a simple way to allow a coder to document >> the function argument type? >> >> f <- function( a:chr, b:data.frame, c:logi ) { … } >> >> presumably, what comes behind the ‘:’ should match what ‘str’ returns. >> >> however, this need not be checked (except perhaps when a particular >> option is set). catching errors as soon as possible makes code easier to >> debug and error messages clearer. >> >> regards, >> >> /iaw >> >> ______________________________________________ >> [email protected] mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> > > > -- > http://hadley.nz > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
