Hervé Pagès
2015-May-13 22:13 UTC
[Rd] Unexpected failure when calling new() with unnamed arg and
Thanks Martin for looking into this. H. On 05/13/2015 03:57 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:>>>>>> Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org> >>>>>> on Tue, 12 May 2015 15:18:42 -0700 writes: > >> Hi, > >> The man page for new() suggests that if 'a' is an object with slots >> "slot1" and "slot2" and C is a class that extends the class of 'a', >> then the 2 following calls should be equivalent: > >> new("C", a, ...) >> new("C", slot1=a at slot1, slot2=a at slot2, ...) > >> This is generally the case but I just ran into a situation where it's >> not. In the following example the former fails while the latter works: > >> setClass("A", representation(slot1="numeric", slot2="logical")) >> setClass("B", contains="A", representation(design="formula")) >> setClass("C", contains="B") >> a <- new("A", slot1=77, slot2=TRUE) > >> new("C", a, design=x ~ y) # fails >> new("C", slot1=a at slot1, slot2=a at slot2, design=x ~ y) # works > >> Note that new("B", a, design=x ~ y) works so the 3-level class >> hierarchy is really needed in order to reproduce. > >> Probably related to this, I also noted that new("B") and/or new("C") >> return invalid objects: > >> c <- new("C") > >> validObject(c) >> # Error in validObject(c) : >> # invalid class ?C? object: invalid object for slot "design" >> # in class "C": got class "S4", should be or extend class "formula" > >> is(c at design, "formula") >> # [1] FALSE > >> class(c at design) >> # [1] "S4" > >> Note that 'c' can be fixed: > >> c at design <- formula(NULL) > >> validObject(c) >> # [1] TRUE > >> Maybe something that the default "initialize" method should take care >> of? > >> Another singularity that is maybe at the root of all of this is that >> the "formula" S4 class is virtual: > >> showClass("formula") >> # Virtual Class "formula" [package "methods"] >> # >> # Slots: >> # >> # Name: .S3Class >> # Class: character >> # >> # Extends: "oldClass" > >> so a bare call to new("formula") fails: > >> new("formula") >> # Error in new("formula") : >> # trying to generate an object from a virtual class ("formula") > >> Shouldn't new("formula") just return an "empty" S3 formula (like >> formula(NULL) does), in the same way that new("integer") returns >> an empty ordinary integer vector? > > Interesting .. and at least worth following. > > One problem and historical reason for the current setup seems > that the "formula" S3 class is not from 'base' but 'stats' : > > R's source, src/library/methods/R/BasicClasses.R, > lines 524 ff has the following comment block > > | .OldClassesPrototypes is a list of S3 classes for which prototype > | objects are known & reasonable. The classes will reappear in > | .OldClassesList, but will have been initialized first in > | .InitBasicClasses. NB: the methods package will NOT set up > | prototypes for S3 classes except those in package base and for "ts" > | (and would rather not do those either). The package that owns the > | S3 class should have code to call setOldClass in its > | initialization. > > So, when John Chambers wrote this, he envisioned that the > 'stats' package would do "the correct thing" for its own classes. > OTOH, as history went, the stats package was never allowed to > depend on methods. > There are many other S3 classes from 'stats' which also end up > similarly, being defined via setOldClass() and that itself > produces a VIRTUAL class. > Also, another part of the (R source) comment above is no longer > quite accurate, e.g., "data.frame" is in .OldClassesPrototypes > but not in .OldClassesList ... > > As I do agree that "formula" is much more basic than these other classes, > I'm currently looking at tweaks to the methods (and stats) code, > to get this to work.... as indeed - you mentioned above - we > already allow "empty S3 formula" objects anyway. > > ... half an hour later : Indeed, I've been able to use the above information > such that new("formula") and new("formula", y ~ x) > work. > > However, your code above now --- with my changes --- would fail : > > > setClass("A", representation(slot1="numeric", slot2="logical")) > > setClass("B", contains="A", representation(design="formula")) > > setClass("C", contains="B") > Error in reconcilePropertiesAndPrototype(name, slots, prototype, superClasses, : > "B" is not eligible to be the data part of another class (must be a basic class or a virtual class with no slots) > > > > So, I am not yet committing my changes to R-devel. > Hopefully more on this, later today. > > Martin Maechler, > ETH Zurich > > >> Thanks, >> H. > >> > sessionInfo() >> R version 3.2.0 Patched (2015-04-17 r68202) >> Platform: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (64-bit) >> Running under: Ubuntu 14.04.2 LTS > >> -- >> Herv? Pag?s >> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center > > [..................] > >-- 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
Joshua Wiley
2015-Oct-08 01:19 UTC
[Rd] Unexpected failure when calling new() with unnamed arg and
Hi, I realize this is an old thread, but just wondering whether a conclusion was ever reached on this issue? I'm using formula(NULL) but it would be nice if default initialization worked for formula classes as well. Cheers, Josh On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org> wrote:> Thanks Martin for looking into this. H. > > > On 05/13/2015 03:57 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: > >> Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org> >>>>>>> on Tue, 12 May 2015 15:18:42 -0700 writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> Hi, >>> >> >> The man page for new() suggests that if 'a' is an object with slots >>> "slot1" and "slot2" and C is a class that extends the class of 'a', >>> then the 2 following calls should be equivalent: >>> >> >> new("C", a, ...) >>> new("C", slot1=a at slot1, slot2=a at slot2, ...) >>> >> >> This is generally the case but I just ran into a situation where it's >>> not. In the following example the former fails while the latter works: >>> >> >> setClass("A", representation(slot1="numeric", slot2="logical")) >>> setClass("B", contains="A", representation(design="formula")) >>> setClass("C", contains="B") >>> a <- new("A", slot1=77, slot2=TRUE) >>> >> >> new("C", a, design=x ~ y) # fails >>> new("C", slot1=a at slot1, slot2=a at slot2, design=x ~ y) # works >>> >> >> Note that new("B", a, design=x ~ y) works so the 3-level class >>> hierarchy is really needed in order to reproduce. >>> >> >> Probably related to this, I also noted that new("B") and/or new("C") >>> return invalid objects: >>> >> >> c <- new("C") >>> >> >> validObject(c) >>> # Error in validObject(c) : >>> # invalid class ?C? object: invalid object for slot "design" >>> # in class "C": got class "S4", should be or extend class "formula" >>> >> >> is(c at design, "formula") >>> # [1] FALSE >>> >> >> class(c at design) >>> # [1] "S4" >>> >> >> Note that 'c' can be fixed: >>> >> >> c at design <- formula(NULL) >>> >> >> validObject(c) >>> # [1] TRUE >>> >> >> Maybe something that the default "initialize" method should take care >>> of? >>> >> >> Another singularity that is maybe at the root of all of this is that >>> the "formula" S4 class is virtual: >>> >> >> showClass("formula") >>> # Virtual Class "formula" [package "methods"] >>> # >>> # Slots: >>> # >>> # Name: .S3Class >>> # Class: character >>> # >>> # Extends: "oldClass" >>> >> >> so a bare call to new("formula") fails: >>> >> >> new("formula") >>> # Error in new("formula") : >>> # trying to generate an object from a virtual class ("formula") >>> >> >> Shouldn't new("formula") just return an "empty" S3 formula (like >>> formula(NULL) does), in the same way that new("integer") returns >>> an empty ordinary integer vector? >>> >> >> Interesting .. and at least worth following. >> >> One problem and historical reason for the current setup seems >> that the "formula" S3 class is not from 'base' but 'stats' : >> >> R's source, src/library/methods/R/BasicClasses.R, >> lines 524 ff has the following comment block >> >> | .OldClassesPrototypes is a list of S3 classes for which prototype >> | objects are known & reasonable. The classes will reappear in >> | .OldClassesList, but will have been initialized first in >> | .InitBasicClasses. NB: the methods package will NOT set up >> | prototypes for S3 classes except those in package base and for "ts" >> | (and would rather not do those either). The package that owns the >> | S3 class should have code to call setOldClass in its >> | initialization. >> >> So, when John Chambers wrote this, he envisioned that the >> 'stats' package would do "the correct thing" for its own classes. >> OTOH, as history went, the stats package was never allowed to >> depend on methods. >> There are many other S3 classes from 'stats' which also end up >> similarly, being defined via setOldClass() and that itself >> produces a VIRTUAL class. >> Also, another part of the (R source) comment above is no longer >> quite accurate, e.g., "data.frame" is in .OldClassesPrototypes >> but not in .OldClassesList ... >> >> As I do agree that "formula" is much more basic than these other classes, >> I'm currently looking at tweaks to the methods (and stats) code, >> to get this to work.... as indeed - you mentioned above - we >> already allow "empty S3 formula" objects anyway. >> >> ... half an hour later : Indeed, I've been able to use the above >> information >> such that new("formula") and new("formula", y ~ x) >> work. >> >> However, your code above now --- with my changes --- would fail : >> >> > setClass("A", representation(slot1="numeric", slot2="logical")) >> > setClass("B", contains="A", representation(design="formula")) >> > setClass("C", contains="B") >> Error in reconcilePropertiesAndPrototype(name, slots, prototype, >> superClasses, : >> "B" is not eligible to be the data part of another class (must be a >> basic class or a virtual class with no slots) >> > >> >> So, I am not yet committing my changes to R-devel. >> Hopefully more on this, later today. >> >> Martin Maechler, >> ETH Zurich >> >> >> Thanks, >>> H. >>> >> >> > sessionInfo() >>> R version 3.2.0 Patched (2015-04-17 r68202) >>> Platform: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (64-bit) >>> Running under: Ubuntu 14.04.2 LTS >>> >> >> -- >>> Herv? Pag?s >>> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center >>> >> >> [..................] >> >> >> > -- > 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 >-- Joshua F. Wiley, Ph.D. http://joshuawiley.com/ --- Postdoctoral Research Fellow Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research Australian Catholic University --- Senior Partner, Elkhart Group Ltd. http://elkhartgroup.com Office: 260.673.5518 [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
Martin Maechler
2015-Oct-08 11:03 UTC
[Rd] Unexpected failure when calling new() with unnamed arg and
>>>>> Joshua Wiley <jwiley.psych at gmail.com> >>>>> on Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:19:16 +1100 writes:> Hi, I realize this is an old thread, but just wondering > whether a conclusion was ever reached on this issue? I'm > using formula(NULL) but it would be nice if default > initialization worked for formula classes as well. Well, yes "of course", it was fixed quite a while ago .. as I had ("almost") promissed (below). Fixed only for R-devel though, e.g., because it potentially requires package re-installation, etc. Martin > Cheers, > Josh > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Herv? Pag?s > <hpages at fredhutch.org> wrote: >> Thanks Martin for looking into this. H. >> >> >> On 05/13/2015 03:57 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: >> >>> Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org> >>>>>>>> on Tue, 12 May 2015 15:18:42 -0700 writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>> >>> The man page for new() suggests that if 'a' is an object >>> with slots >>>> "slot1" and "slot2" and C is a class that extends the >>>> class of 'a', then the 2 following calls should be >>>> equivalent: >>>> >>> >>> new("C", a, ...) >>>> new("C", slot1=a at slot1, slot2=a at slot2, ...) >>>> >>> >>> This is generally the case but I just ran into a >>> situation where it's >>>> not. In the following example the former fails while >>>> the latter works: >>>> >>> >>> setClass("A", representation(slot1="numeric", >>> slot2="logical")) >>>> setClass("B", contains="A", >>>> representation(design="formula")) setClass("C", >>>> contains="B") a <- new("A", slot1=77, slot2=TRUE) >>>> >>> >>> new("C", a, design=x ~ y) # fails >>>> new("C", slot1=a at slot1, slot2=a at slot2, design=x ~ y) # >>>> works >>>> >>> >>> Note that new("B", a, design=x ~ y) works so the 3-level >>> class >>>> hierarchy is really needed in order to reproduce. >>>> >>> >>> Probably related to this, I also noted that new("B") >>> and/or new("C") >>>> return invalid objects: >>>> >>> >>> c <- new("C") >>>> >>> >>> validObject(c) >>>> # Error in validObject(c) : # invalid class ?C? object: >>>> invalid object for slot "design" # in class "C": got >>>> class "S4", should be or extend class "formula" >>>> >>> >>> is(c at design, "formula") >>>> # [1] FALSE >>>> >>> >>> class(c at design) >>>> # [1] "S4" >>>> >>> >>> Note that 'c' can be fixed: >>>> >>> >>> c at design <- formula(NULL) >>>> >>> >>> validObject(c) >>>> # [1] TRUE >>>> >>> >>> Maybe something that the default "initialize" method >>> should take care >>>> of? >>>> >>> >>> Another singularity that is maybe at the root of all of >>> this is that >>>> the "formula" S4 class is virtual: >>>> >>> >>> showClass("formula") >>>> # Virtual Class "formula" [package "methods"] >>>> # >>>> # Slots: >>>> # >>>> # Name: .S3Class # Class: character >>>> # >>>> # Extends: "oldClass" >>>> >>> >>> so a bare call to new("formula") fails: >>>> >>> >>> new("formula") >>>> # Error in new("formula") : # trying to generate an >>>> object from a virtual class ("formula") >>>> >>> >>> Shouldn't new("formula") just return an "empty" S3 >>> formula (like >>>> formula(NULL) does), in the same way that >>>> new("integer") returns an empty ordinary integer >>>> vector? >>>> >>> >>> Interesting .. and at least worth following. >>> >>> One problem and historical reason for the current setup >>> seems that the "formula" S3 class is not from 'base' but >>> 'stats' : >>> >>> R's source, src/library/methods/R/BasicClasses.R, lines >>> 524 ff has the following comment block >>> >>> | .OldClassesPrototypes is a list of S3 classes for >>> which prototype | objects are known & reasonable. The >>> classes will reappear in | .OldClassesList, but will >>> have been initialized first in | .InitBasicClasses. NB: >>> the methods package will NOT set up | prototypes for S3 >>> classes except those in package base and for "ts" | (and >>> would rather not do those either). The package that >>> owns the | S3 class should have code to call setOldClass >>> in its | initialization. >>> >>> So, when John Chambers wrote this, he envisioned that >>> the 'stats' package would do "the correct thing" for its >>> own classes. OTOH, as history went, the stats package >>> was never allowed to depend on methods. There are many >>> other S3 classes from 'stats' which also end up >>> similarly, being defined via setOldClass() and that >>> itself produces a VIRTUAL class. Also, another part of >>> the (R source) comment above is no longer quite >>> accurate, e.g., "data.frame" is in .OldClassesPrototypes >>> but not in .OldClassesList ... >>> >>> As I do agree that "formula" is much more basic than >>> these other classes, I'm currently looking at tweaks to >>> the methods (and stats) code, to get this to work.... as >>> indeed - you mentioned above - we already allow "empty >>> S3 formula" objects anyway. >>> >>> ... half an hour later : Indeed, I've been able to use >>> the above information such that new("formula") and >>> new("formula", y ~ x) work. >>> >>> However, your code above now --- with my changes --- >>> would fail : >>> >>> > setClass("A", representation(slot1="numeric", >>> slot2="logical")) > setClass("B", contains="A", >>> representation(design="formula")) > setClass("C", >>> contains="B") Error in >>> reconcilePropertiesAndPrototype(name, slots, prototype, >>> superClasses, : "B" is not eligible to be the data part >>> of another class (must be a basic class or a virtual >>> class with no slots) >>> > >>> >>> So, I am not yet committing my changes to R-devel. >>> Hopefully more on this, later today. >>> >>> Martin Maechler, ETH Zurich >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>>> H. >>>> >>> >>> > sessionInfo() >>>> R version 3.2.0 Patched (2015-04-17 r68202) Platform: >>>> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (64-bit) Running under: Ubuntu >>>> 14.04.2 LTS >>>> >>> >>> -- >>>> Herv? Pag?s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center >>>> >>> >>> [..................] >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 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 >> > -- > Joshua F. Wiley, Ph.D. http://joshuawiley.com/ > --- > Postdoctoral Research Fellow Mary MacKillop Institute for > Health Research Australian Catholic University > --- > Senior Partner, Elkhart Group Ltd. > http://elkhartgroup.com Office: 260.673.5518
Reasonably Related Threads
- Unexpected failure when calling new() with unnamed arg and
- Unexpected failure when calling new() with unnamed arg and
- Unexpected failure when calling new() with unnamed arg and
- Unexpected failure when calling new() with unnamed arg and
- Seeking help to define method for show() for an S4 object