R help - Apr 2024 - missing() fails to detect missing

When a generic (S4) has an argument with a default followed by ..., missing()
doesn't seem to work if the method omits the ...
--------------------Sample-------------------------------
foo <- function(x, y=0, ...){
  "you are very generic"
}

# no ... in function arguments
setMethod("foo", signature="character", function(x, y=0){
  if (missing(y))
    return("must give y for character")
  y
})

setMethod("foo", signature="numeric", function(x, y=0, ...){
  if (missing(y))
    return("must give y for numeric")
  y
})

print(foo("a"))  #[1] 0
print(foo(0))    #[1] "must give y for numeric"
------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the result for foo("a") I'm puzzled by, since missing(y)
does not evaluate to TRUE.

Background
=========The methods documentation has 2 points on which the above definitions
may fail.

1. The generic has regular arguments and ... arguments.  But dotsMethods docs
say
        > either the signature of the generic function is "..."
only, or it
        > does not contain "..."
Since the arguments in ... are not part of the signatures I think I'm OK,
but another reading is that
one just shouldn't mix ... and other arguments.

2. setMethod docs say
    > The definition must be a function with the same formal arguments as the
generic; however, setMethod() will handle methods that add arguments, if ... is
a formal argument to the generic.
Since the initial definition has arguments x, y, ... and the first method
definition has only x, y, the arguments don't match.  So maybe that's
the problem.

I don't know if the fact that y has a default value matters.

The real code has a function f that ordinarily requires an additional piece of
information, y, to compute a result.  But for one class, the result doesn't
depend on y and so that argument may be omitted.

Context
=====R 4.3.3 on MS-Windows under RStudio 2023.12.1 build 402.

Thanks for any insights.
Ross

Fascinating. Or, well, not.

Failing to use a method signature that is compatible with the generic is a
no-no. So your bug seems to me to be outside the bounds of how R is supposed to
be used. So don't do that.

On April 17, 2024 4:25:38 PM PDT, "Boylan, Ross via R-help" <r-help
at r-project.org> wrote:
>When a generic (S4) has an argument with a default followed by ...,
missing() doesn't seem to work if the method omits the ...
>--------------------Sample-------------------------------
>foo <- function(x, y=0, ...){
>  "you are very generic"
>}
>
># no ... in function arguments
>setMethod("foo", signature="character", function(x,
y=0){
>  if (missing(y))
>    return("must give y for character")
>  y
>})
>
>setMethod("foo", signature="numeric", function(x, y=0,
...){
>  if (missing(y))
>    return("must give y for numeric")
>  y
>})
>
>print(foo("a"))  #[1] 0
>print(foo(0))    #[1] "must give y for numeric"
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>It's the result for foo("a") I'm puzzled by, since
missing(y) does not evaluate to TRUE.
>
>Background
>=========>The methods documentation has 2 points on which the above
definitions may fail.
>
>1. The generic has regular arguments and ... arguments.  But dotsMethods
docs say
>        > either the signature of the generic function is "..."
only, or it
>        > does not contain "..."
>Since the arguments in ... are not part of the signatures I think I'm
OK, but another reading is that
>one just shouldn't mix ... and other arguments.
>
>2. setMethod docs say
>    > The definition must be a function with the same formal arguments as
the generic; however, setMethod() will handle methods that add arguments, if ...
is a formal argument to the generic.
>Since the initial definition has arguments x, y, ... and the first method
definition has only x, y, the arguments don't match.  So maybe that's
the problem.
>
>I don't know if the fact that y has a default value matters.
>
>The real code has a function f that ordinarily requires an additional piece
of information, y, to compute a result.  But for one class, the result
doesn't depend on y and so that argument may be omitted.
>
>Context
>=====>R 4.3.3 on MS-Windows under RStudio 2023.12.1 build 402.
>
>Thanks for any insights.
>Ross
>
>______________________________________________
>R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
>https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
>PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
>and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
-- 
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.