Martin Maechler
2017-May-15 08:39 UTC
[Rd] stopifnot() does not stop at first non-TRUE argument
>>>>> 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
Serguei Sokol
2017-May-15 10:48 UTC
[Rd] stopifnot() does not stop at first non-TRUE argument
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)$... >>> >>> and then explicitly evaluate each argument in turn in the caller >>> frame. This amount of nonstandard evaluation sounds like it would >>> incur a performance penalty, which could be undesirable. The first line of the current stopifnot() n <- length(ll <- list(...)) already evaluates _all_ of the arguments in the caller frame. So to do the same only on a part of them (till the first FALSE or NA occurs) cannot be more penalizing than the current version, right? I attach here a slightly modified version called stopifnot_new() which works in accordance with the man page and where there are only two additional calls: parent.frame() and eval(). I don't think it can be considered as real performance penalty as the same or bigger amount of (implicit) evaluations was already done in the current version:> source("stopifnot_new.R") > stopifnot_new(3 == 5, as.integer(2^32), a <- 12)Error: 3 == 5 is not TRUE> aError: object 'a' not found Best, Serguei. Le 15/05/2017 ? 10:39, Martin Maechler a ?crit :>>>>>> Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org> >>>>>> on Wed, 3 May 2017 12:08:26 -0700 writes: > > On 05/03/2017 12:04 PM, Herv? Pag?s wrote: > >> Not sure why the performance penalty of nonstandard evaluation would > >> be more of a concern here than for something like switch(). > > > which is actually a primitive. So it seems that there is at least > > another way to go than 'dots <- match.call(expand.dots=FALSE)$...' > > > 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
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 >
Maybe Matching 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