No problem. I wasn't sure if there were std. situations in which extraneous arguments (i.e. arguments not meant to be interpretted by R or BATCH) would be passed. In that case it would not be a big deal to put an error check on this.
I've modified my version of BATCH to handle my issues, I was just soliciting feedback about its more general usefulness. Thanks, Doug On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Tony Plate wrote: > If you want to avoid typing, why not just use a shell that offers file-name > completion? Lots do. That would seem to address the problem in the place > where it arises. > > I don't think it would be a good idea to make R try to guess whether it > really should use the second argument after BATCH as an output file. This > type of complication can have unintended and unanticipated side effects -- > "Do What I Mean" programming tools have not been a huge success because > it's impossible to always accurately guess what a person means. I don't > know about other people, but I use scripts to generate scripts all the time > (for generating commands to run experiments with different sets of > parameters). > > -- Tony Plate > > At Tuesday 03:32 PM 11/16/2004, Douglas Grove wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I'm having a problem (of my own creation) with BATCH. > > > >The current problem (for me): > >---------------------------- > >I'm sloppy. I work on *nux systems and will type e.g. "R CMD BATCH a*R out" > >to avoid typing the full name of some R script of mine. However, > >sometimes I'm overly sloppy and there are multiple files that match > >"a*R", so "a*R" turns into e.g. "aa.R ab.R", and the arguments to > >BATCH will be "aa.R ab.R out". BATCH will use aa.R as the input file and > >ab.R as the output file, leading to my script ab.R being overwritten. > >I then have to plead to my sysadm to restore the file for me. > > > >I've done this often enough that I need to make a modification to BATCH, > >and was wondering if anything can be done about this that can be used > >generally. In other words, is there a fix to my problem that would be > >usable in general and won't mess up something else? > > > > > >Solutions: > >----------- > >A simple solution to this problem is to print a message and exit when > >more than 2 arguments are found. While I don't know why offhand, there's > >probably a reason why people would like to pass extra arguments and have > >them ignored by BATCH. If so, this won't work in general. > > > >Something more intelligent would be to examine the first two arguments > >and if they both end in .R then issue a message and exit. I would think > >create fewer problems. I don't think many people are using R scripts to > >create other R scripts, and if they are they can always rename them after > >they create them. > > > >I'm just going to go for the simple solution for now, but wanted to toss > >this issue out in case it might be something that could be integrated > >into the official BATCH script. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Doug Grove > >Statistical Research Associate > >Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center > >Seattle, WA > > > >______________________________________________ > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > >https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
