search for: debug_issue_xyx

...so the 'if()' construct has the advantage that you only need to change code at the start of the comment, not at both ends. The if(FALSE) could be if(isTRUE(getOption("DEBUG_ISSUE_XYZ"))) so you would not even have to change code to re-enable the debugging code, just call options(DEBUG_ISSUE_XYX=TRUE)). Bill Dunlap TIBCO Software wdunlap tibco.com On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Suzen, Mehmet <msuzen at gmail.com> wrote: > AFAIK block comment is not possible > it needs to be implemented in R interpreter and defined in the > parser.'If' solution is not elegant. &g...

...nstruct has the advantage that you only need to > change code at the start of the comment, not at both ends. > > The if(FALSE) could be if(isTRUE(getOption("DEBUG_ISSUE_XYZ"))) so you > would not even have to change code to re-enable the debugging code, just > call options(DEBUG_ISSUE_XYX=TRUE)). (a) The foregoing is getting too subtle for my feeble brain. (b) A fundamental problem with the if(FALSE) { ... } paradigm is that the enclosed code must be syntactically valid, and there are certainly situations in which one might wish to comment out sections of code...

...antage that you only need to >> change code at the start of the comment, not at both ends. >> >> The if(FALSE) could be if(isTRUE(getOption("DEBUG_ISSUE_XYZ"))) so you >> would not even have to change code to re-enable the debugging code, just >> call options(DEBUG_ISSUE_XYX=TRUE)). > > > (a) The foregoing is getting too subtle for my feeble brain. > > (b) A fundamental problem with the > > if(FALSE) { > ... > } > > paradigm is that the enclosed code must be syntactically valid, and > there are certainly situat...

...need to >>> change code at the start of the comment, not at both ends. >>> >>> The if(FALSE) could be if(isTRUE(getOption("DEBUG_ISSUE_XYZ"))) so you >>> would not even have to change code to re-enable the debugging code, just >>> call options(DEBUG_ISSUE_XYX=TRUE)). >> >> >> (a) The foregoing is getting too subtle for my feeble brain. >> >> (b) A fundamental problem with the >> >> if(FALSE) { >> ... >> } >> >> paradigm is that the enclosed code must be syntactically val...

AFAIK block comment is not possible it needs to be implemented in R interpreter and defined in the parser.'If' solution is not elegant. On 2 September 2017 at 14:09, Uwe Ligges <ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de> wrote: > > > On 02.09.2017 11:40, Christian wrote: >> >> I consider it quite worth while to introduce into R syntax a nestable >> block comment