Serguei Sokol
2017-May-15 11:14 UTC
[Rd] stopifnot() does not stop at first non-TRUE argument
I see in the archives that the attachment cannot pass.
So, here is the code:
8<----
stopifnot_new <- function (...)
{
mc <- match.call()
n <- length(mc)-1
if (n == 0L)
return(invisible())
Dparse <- function(call, cutoff = 60L) {
ch <- deparse(call, width.cutoff = cutoff)
if (length(ch) > 1L)
paste(ch[1L], "....")
else ch
}
head <- function(x, n = 6L) x[seq_len(if (n < 0L) max(length(x) +
n, 0L) else min(n, length(x)))]
abbrev <- function(ae, n = 3L) paste(c(head(ae, n), if (length(ae) >
n) "...."), collapse = "\n ")
pfr <- parent.frame()
for (i in 1L:n) {
cl.i <- mc[[i + 1L]]
r <- eval(cl.i, pfr)
if (!(is.logical(r) && !anyNA(r) && all(r))) {
msg <- if (is.call(cl.i) && identical(cl.i[[1]],
quote(all.equal)) &&
(is.null(ni <- names(cl.i)) || length(cl.i) == 3L ||
length(cl.i <- cl.i[!nzchar(ni)]) == 3L))
sprintf(gettext("%s and %s are not equal:\n %s"),
Dparse(cl.i[[2]]), Dparse(cl.i[[3]]), abbrev(r))
else sprintf(ngettext(length(r), "%s is not TRUE",
"%s are not all TRUE"),
Dparse(cl.i))
stop(msg, call. = FALSE, domain = NA)
}
}
invisible()
}
8<----
Best,
Serguei.
Le 15/05/2017 ? 12:48, Serguei Sokol a ?crit :> Hello,
>
> I am a new on this list, so I introduce myself very briefly:
> my background is applied mathematics, more precisely scientific calculus
> applied for modeling metabolic systems, I am author/maintainer of
> few packages (Deriv, rmumps, arrApply).
>
> Now, on the subject of this discussion, I must say that I don't really
understand
> Peter's argument:
>
> >>> To do it differently, you would have to do something like
> >>>
> >>> dots <- match.call(expand.dots=FALSE)$...
> >>>
> >>> and then explicitly evaluate each argument in turn in the
caller
> >>> frame. This amount of nonstandard evaluation sounds like
it would
> >>> incur a performance penalty, which could be undesirable.
> The first line of the current stopifnot()
> n <- length(ll <- list(...))
> already evaluates _all_ of the arguments
> in the caller frame. So to do the same only
> on a part of them (till the first FALSE or NA occurs)
> cannot be more penalizing than the current version, right?
>
> I attach here a slightly modified version called stopifnot_new()
> which works in accordance with the man page and
> where there are only two additional calls: parent.frame() and eval().
> I don't think it can be considered as real performance penalty
> as the same or bigger amount of (implicit) evaluations was
> already done in the current version:
>
>> source("stopifnot_new.R")
>> stopifnot_new(3 == 5, as.integer(2^32), a <- 12)
> Error: 3 == 5 is not TRUE
>> a
> Error: object 'a' not found
>
> Best,
> Serguei.
>
>
> Le 15/05/2017 ? 10:39, Martin Maechler a ?crit :
>>>>>>> Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org>
>>>>>>> on Wed, 3 May 2017 12:08:26 -0700 writes:
>> > On 05/03/2017 12:04 PM, Herv? Pag?s wrote:
>> >> Not sure why the performance penalty of nonstandard
evaluation would
>> >> be more of a concern here than for something like
switch().
>>
>> > which is actually a primitive. So it seems that there is at
least
>> > another way to go than 'dots <-
match.call(expand.dots=FALSE)$...'
>>
>> > Thanks, H.
>>
>> >>
>> >> If that can't/won't be fixed, what about fixing
the man page so it's
>> >> in sync with the current behavior?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks, H.
>>
>> Being back from vacations,...
>> I agree that something should be done here, if not to the code than at
>> least to the man page.
>>
>> For now, I'd like to look a bit longer into a possible change to
the function.
>> Peter mentioned a NSE way to fix the problem and you mentioned
switch().
>>
>> Originally, stopifnot() was only a few lines of code and meant to be
>> "self-explaining" by just reading its definition, and I
really would like
>> to not walk too much away from that original idea.
>> How did you (Herve) think to use switch() here?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> On 05/03/2017 02:26 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
>> >>> The first line of stopifnot is
>> >>>
>> >>> n <- length(ll <- list(...))
>> >>>
>> >>> which takes ALL arguments and forms a list of them.
This implies
>> >>> evaluation, so explains the effect that you see.
>> >>>
>> >>> To do it differently, you would have to do something
like
>> >>>
>> >>> dots <- match.call(expand.dots=FALSE)$...
>> >>>
>> >>> and then explicitly evaluate each argument in turn in
the caller
>> >>> frame. This amount of nonstandard evaluation sounds
like it would
>> >>> incur a performance penalty, which could be
undesirable.
>> >>>
>> >>> If you want to enforce the order of evaluation, there
is always
>> >>>
>> >>> stopifnot(A) stopifnot(B)
>> >>>
>> >>> -pd
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 3 May 2017, at 02:50 , Herv? Pag?s <hpages
at fredhutch.org>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It's surprising that stopifnot() keeps
evaluating its arguments
>> >>>> after it reaches the first one that is not TRUE:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > stopifnot(3 == 5, as.integer(2^32), a <-
12) Error: 3 == 5 is
>> >>>> not TRUE In addition: Warning message: In
stopifnot(3 == 5,
>> >>>> as.integer(2^32), a <- 12) : NAs introduced by
coercion to integer
>> >>>> range > a [1] 12
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The details section in its man page actually
suggests that it
>> >>>> should stop at the first non-TRUE argument:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ?stopifnot(A, B)? is conceptually equivalent to
>> >>>>
>> >>>> { if(any(is.na(A)) || !all(A)) stop(...);
if(any(is.na(B)) ||
>> >>>> !all(B)) stop(...) }
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best, H.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Herv? Pag?s
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 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: hpages at fredhutch.org Phone: (206)
667-5791 Fax: (206)
>> >>>> 667-1319
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ______________________________________________
>> >>>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> >>>>
>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__stat.ethz.ch_mailman_listinfo_r-2Ddevel&d=DwIFaQ&c=eRAMFD45gAfqt84VtBcfhQ&r=BK7q3XeAvimeWdGbWY_wJYbW0WYiZvSXAJJKaaPhzWA&m=JwgKhKD2k-9Kedeh6pqu-A8x6UEV0INrcxcSGVGo3Tg&s=f7IKJIhpRNJMC3rZAkuI6-MTdL3GAKSV2wK0boFN5HY&e>>
>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>> > -- Herv? Pag?s
>>
>> > 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: hpages at fredhutch.org Phone: (206) 667-5791 Fax:
(206)
>> > 667-1319
>>
>> > ______________________________________________
>> > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
Martin Maechler
2017-May-15 13:37 UTC
[Rd] stopifnot() does not stop at first non-TRUE argument
>>>>> Serguei Sokol <sokol at insa-toulouse.fr> >>>>> on Mon, 15 May 2017 13:14:34 +0200 writes:> I see in the archives that the attachment cannot pass. > So, here is the code: [....... MM: I needed to reformat etc to match closely to the current source code which is in https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/library/base/R/stop.R or its corresponding github mirror https://github.com/wch/r-source/blob/trunk/src/library/base/R/stop.R ] > Best, > Serguei. Yes, something like that seems even simpler than Peter's suggestion... It currently breaks 'make check' in the R sources, specifically in tests/reg-tests-2.R (lines 6574 ff), the new code now gives > ## error messages from (C-level) evalList > tst <- function(y) { stopifnot(is.numeric(y)); y+ 1 } > try(tst()) Error in eval(cl.i, pfr) : argument "y" is missing, with no default whereas previously it gave Error in stopifnot(is.numeric(y)) : argument "y" is missing, with no default But I think that change (of call stack in such an error case) is unavoidable and not a big problem. -- I'm still curious about Herv?'s idea on using switch() for the issue. Martin > Le 15/05/2017 ? 12:48, Serguei Sokol a ?crit : >> Hello, >> >> I am a new on this list, so I introduce myself very briefly: >> my background is applied mathematics, more precisely scientific calculus >> applied for modeling metabolic systems, I am author/maintainer of >> few packages (Deriv, rmumps, arrApply). >> >> Now, on the subject of this discussion, I must say that I don't really understand >> Peter's argument: >> >> >>> To do it differently, you would have to do something like >> >>> >> >>> dots <- match.call(expand.dots=FALSE)$... >> >>> >> >>> and then explicitly evaluate each argument in turn in the caller >> >>> frame. This amount of nonstandard evaluation sounds like it would >> >>> incur a performance penalty, which could be undesirable. >> The first line of the current stopifnot() >> n <- length(ll <- list(...)) >> already evaluates _all_ of the arguments >> in the caller frame. So to do the same only >> on a part of them (till the first FALSE or NA occurs) >> cannot be more penalizing than the current version, right? >> >> I attach here a slightly modified version called stopifnot_new() >> which works in accordance with the man page and >> where there are only two additional calls: parent.frame() and eval(). >> I don't think it can be considered as real performance penalty >> as the same or bigger amount of (implicit) evaluations was >> already done in the current version: >> >>> source("stopifnot_new.R") >>> stopifnot_new(3 == 5, as.integer(2^32), a <- 12) >> Error: 3 == 5 is not TRUE >>> a >> Error: object 'a' not found >> >> Best, >> Serguei. >> >> >> Le 15/05/2017 ? 10:39, Martin Maechler a ?crit : >>>>>>>> Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org> >>>>>>>> on Wed, 3 May 2017 12:08:26 -0700 writes: >>> > On 05/03/2017 12:04 PM, Herv? Pag?s wrote: >>> >> Not sure why the performance penalty of nonstandard evaluation would >>> >> be more of a concern here than for something like switch(). >>> >>> > which is actually a primitive. So it seems that there is at least >>> > another way to go than 'dots <- match.call(expand.dots=FALSE)$...' >>> >>> > Thanks, H. >>> >>> >> >>> >> If that can't/won't be fixed, what about fixing the man page so it's >>> >> in sync with the current behavior? >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, H. >>> >>> Being back from vacations,... >>> I agree that something should be done here, if not to the code than at >>> least to the man page. >>> >>> For now, I'd like to look a bit longer into a possible change to the function. >>> Peter mentioned a NSE way to fix the problem and you mentioned switch(). >>> >>> Originally, stopifnot() was only a few lines of code and meant to be >>> "self-explaining" by just reading its definition, and I really would like >>> to not walk too much away from that original idea. >>> How did you (Herve) think to use switch() here? >>> >>> >>> >>> >> On 05/03/2017 02:26 AM, peter dalgaard wrote: >>> >>> The first line of stopifnot is >>> >>> >>> >>> n <- length(ll <- list(...)) >>> >>> >>> >>> which takes ALL arguments and forms a list of them. This implies >>> >>> evaluation, so explains the effect that you see. >>> >>> >>> >>> To do it differently, you would have to do something like >>> >>> >>> >>> dots <- match.call(expand.dots=FALSE)$... >>> >>> >>> >>> and then explicitly evaluate each argument in turn in the caller >>> >>> frame. This amount of nonstandard evaluation sounds like it would >>> >>> incur a performance penalty, which could be undesirable. >>> >>> >>> >>> If you want to enforce the order of evaluation, there is always >>> >>> >>> >>> stopifnot(A) stopifnot(B) >>> >>> >>> >>> -pd >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 3 May 2017, at 02:50 , Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org> >>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Hi, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> It's surprising that stopifnot() keeps evaluating its arguments >>> >>>> after it reaches the first one that is not TRUE: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> > stopifnot(3 == 5, as.integer(2^32), a <- 12) Error: 3 == 5 is >>> >>>> not TRUE In addition: Warning message: In stopifnot(3 == 5, >>> >>>> as.integer(2^32), a <- 12) : NAs introduced by coercion to integer >>> >>>> range > a [1] 12 >>> >>>> >>> >>>> The details section in its man page actually suggests that it >>> >>>> should stop at the first non-TRUE argument: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ?stopifnot(A, B)? is conceptually equivalent to >>> >>>> >>> >>>> { if(any(is.na(A)) || !all(A)) stop(...); if(any(is.na(B)) || >>> >>>> !all(B)) stop(...) } >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Best, H. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> Herv? Pag?s >>> >>>> >>> >>>> 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: hpages at fredhutch.org Phone: (206) 667-5791 Fax: (206) >>> >>>> 667-1319 >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ______________________________________________ >>> >>>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list >>> >>>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__stat.ethz.ch_mailman_listinfo_r-2Ddevel&d=DwIFaQ&c=eRAMFD45gAfqt84VtBcfhQ&r=BK7q3XeAvimeWdGbWY_wJYbW0WYiZvSXAJJKaaPhzWA&m=JwgKhKD2k-9Kedeh6pqu-A8x6UEV0INrcxcSGVGo3Tg&s=f7IKJIhpRNJMC3rZAkuI6-MTdL3GAKSV2wK0boFN5HY&e >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> > -- Herv? Pag?s >>> >>> > 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: hpages at fredhutch.org Phone: (206) 667-5791 Fax: (206) >>> > 667-1319 >>> >>> > ______________________________________________ >>> > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list >>> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> >>> ______________________________________________ >>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> > ______________________________________________ > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
peter dalgaard
2017-May-15 14:28 UTC
[Rd] stopifnot() does not stop at first non-TRUE argument
I think Herv?'s idea was just that if switch can evaluate arguments
selectively, so can stopifnot(). But switch() is .Primitive, so does it from C.
I think it is almost a no-brainer to implement a sequential stopifnot if
dropping to C code is allowed. In R it gets trickier, but how about this:
Stopifnot <- function(...)
{
n <- length(match.call()) - 1
for (i in 1:n)
{
nm <- as.name(paste0("..",i))
if (!eval(nm)) stop("not all true")
}
}
Stopifnot(2+2==4)
Stopifnot(2+2==5, print("Hey!!!") == "Hey!!!")
Stopifnot(2+2==4, print("Hey!!!") == "Hey!!!")
Stopifnot(T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,F,T)
> On 15 May 2017, at 15:37 , Martin Maechler <maechler at
stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
>
> I'm still curious about Herv?'s idea on using switch() for the
> issue.
--
Peter Dalgaard, Professor,
Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School
Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Phone: (+45)38153501
Office: A 4.23
Email: pd.mes at cbs.dk Priv: PDalgd at gmail.com
Serguei Sokol
2017-May-15 14:32 UTC
[Rd] stopifnot() does not stop at first non-TRUE argument
Le 15/05/2017 ? 15:37, Martin Maechler a ?crit :>>>>>> Serguei Sokol <sokol at insa-toulouse.fr> >>>>>> on Mon, 15 May 2017 13:14:34 +0200 writes: > > I see in the archives that the attachment cannot pass. > > So, here is the code: > > [....... MM: I needed to reformat etc to match closely to > the current source code which is in > https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/library/base/R/stop.R > or its corresponding github mirror > https://github.com/wch/r-source/blob/trunk/src/library/base/R/stop.R > ] > > > Best, > > Serguei. > > Yes, something like that seems even simpler than Peter's > suggestion... > > It currently breaks 'make check' in the R sources, > specifically in tests/reg-tests-2.R (lines 6574 ff), > the new code now gives > > > ## error messages from (C-level) evalList > > tst <- function(y) { stopifnot(is.numeric(y)); y+ 1 } > > try(tst()) > Error in eval(cl.i, pfr) : argument "y" is missing, with no default > > whereas previously it gave > > Error in stopifnot(is.numeric(y)) : > argument "y" is missing, with no default > > > But I think that change (of call stack in such an error case) is > unavoidable and not a big problem.It can be avoided but at price of customizing error() and warning() calls with something like: wrn <- function(w) {w$call <- cl.i; warning(w)} err <- function(e) {e$call <- cl.i; stop(e)} ... tryCatch(r <- eval(cl.i, pfr), warning=wrn, error=err) Serguei.> > -- > > I'm still curious about Herv?'s idea on using switch() for the > issue. > > Martin > > > > Le 15/05/2017 ? 12:48, Serguei Sokol a ?crit : > >> Hello, > >> > >> I am a new on this list, so I introduce myself very briefly: > >> my background is applied mathematics, more precisely scientific calculus > >> applied for modeling metabolic systems, I am author/maintainer of > >> few packages (Deriv, rmumps, arrApply). > >> > >> Now, on the subject of this discussion, I must say that I don't really understand > >> Peter's argument: > >> > >> >>> To do it differently, you would have to do something like > >> >>> > >> >>> dots <- match.call(expand.dots=FALSE)$... > >> >>> > >> >>> and then explicitly evaluate each argument in turn in the caller > >> >>> frame. This amount of nonstandard evaluation sounds like it would > >> >>> incur a performance penalty, which could be undesirable. > >> The first line of the current stopifnot() > >> n <- length(ll <- list(...)) > >> already evaluates _all_ of the arguments > >> in the caller frame. So to do the same only > >> on a part of them (till the first FALSE or NA occurs) > >> cannot be more penalizing than the current version, right? > >> > >> I attach here a slightly modified version called stopifnot_new() > >> which works in accordance with the man page and > >> where there are only two additional calls: parent.frame() and eval(). > >> I don't think it can be considered as real performance penalty > >> as the same or bigger amount of (implicit) evaluations was > >> already done in the current version: > >> > >>> source("stopifnot_new.R") > >>> stopifnot_new(3 == 5, as.integer(2^32), a <- 12) > >> Error: 3 == 5 is not TRUE > >>> a > >> Error: object 'a' not found > >> > >> Best, > >> Serguei. > >> > >> > >> Le 15/05/2017 ? 10:39, Martin Maechler a ?crit : > >>>>>>>> Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org> > >>>>>>>> on Wed, 3 May 2017 12:08:26 -0700 writes: > >>> > On 05/03/2017 12:04 PM, Herv? Pag?s wrote: > >>> >> Not sure why the performance penalty of nonstandard evaluation would > >>> >> be more of a concern here than for something like switch(). > >>> > >>> > which is actually a primitive. So it seems that there is at least > >>> > another way to go than 'dots <- match.call(expand.dots=FALSE)$...' > >>> > >>> > Thanks, H. > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >> If that can't/won't be fixed, what about fixing the man page so it's > >>> >> in sync with the current behavior? > >>> >> > >>> >> Thanks, H. > >>> > >>> Being back from vacations,... > >>> I agree that something should be done here, if not to the code than at > >>> least to the man page. > >>> > >>> For now, I'd like to look a bit longer into a possible change to the function. > >>> Peter mentioned a NSE way to fix the problem and you mentioned switch(). > >>> > >>> Originally, stopifnot() was only a few lines of code and meant to be > >>> "self-explaining" by just reading its definition, and I really would like > >>> to not walk too much away from that original idea. > >>> How did you (Herve) think to use switch() here? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> On 05/03/2017 02:26 AM, peter dalgaard wrote: > >>> >>> The first line of stopifnot is > >>> >>> > >>> >>> n <- length(ll <- list(...)) > >>> >>> > >>> >>> which takes ALL arguments and forms a list of them. This implies > >>> >>> evaluation, so explains the effect that you see. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> To do it differently, you would have to do something like > >>> >>> > >>> >>> dots <- match.call(expand.dots=FALSE)$... > >>> >>> > >>> >>> and then explicitly evaluate each argument in turn in the caller > >>> >>> frame. This amount of nonstandard evaluation sounds like it would > >>> >>> incur a performance penalty, which could be undesirable. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> If you want to enforce the order of evaluation, there is always > >>> >>> > >>> >>> stopifnot(A) stopifnot(B) > >>> >>> > >>> >>> -pd > >>> >>> > >>> >>>> On 3 May 2017, at 02:50 , Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org> > >>> >>>> wrote: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Hi, > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> It's surprising that stopifnot() keeps evaluating its arguments > >>> >>>> after it reaches the first one that is not TRUE: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > stopifnot(3 == 5, as.integer(2^32), a <- 12) Error: 3 == 5 is > >>> >>>> not TRUE In addition: Warning message: In stopifnot(3 == 5, > >>> >>>> as.integer(2^32), a <- 12) : NAs introduced by coercion to integer > >>> >>>> range > a [1] 12 > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> The details section in its man page actually suggests that it > >>> >>>> should stop at the first non-TRUE argument: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> ?stopifnot(A, B)? is conceptually equivalent to > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> { if(any(is.na(A)) || !all(A)) stop(...); if(any(is.na(B)) || > >>> >>>> !all(B)) stop(...) } > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Best, H. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> -- > >>> >>>> Herv? Pag?s > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> 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: hpages at fredhutch.org Phone: (206) 667-5791 Fax: (206) > >>> >>>> 667-1319 > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> ______________________________________________ > >>> >>>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > >>> >>>> > >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__stat.ethz.ch_mailman_listinfo_r-2Ddevel&d=DwIFaQ&c=eRAMFD45gAfqt84VtBcfhQ&r=BK7q3XeAvimeWdGbWY_wJYbW0WYiZvSXAJJKaaPhzWA&m=JwgKhKD2k-9Kedeh6pqu-A8x6UEV0INrcxcSGVGo3Tg&s=f7IKJIhpRNJMC3rZAkuI6-MTdL3GAKSV2wK0boFN5HY&e> >>> >>>> > >>> >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > -- Herv? Pag?s > >>> > >>> > 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: hpages at fredhutch.org Phone: (206) 667-5791 Fax: (206) > >>> > 667-1319 > >>> > >>> > ______________________________________________ > >>> > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > >>> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > >>> > >>> ______________________________________________ > >>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > >> > > > ______________________________________________ > > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >
Possibly Parallel Threads
- stopifnot() does not stop at first non-TRUE argument
- stopifnot() does not stop at first non-TRUE argument
- stopifnot() does not stop at first non-TRUE argument
- stopifnot() does not stop at first non-TRUE argument
- stopifnot() does not stop at first non-TRUE argument