similar to: Tracebacks & try

Anyone knows a way to re-throw a caught interrupt condition, so that it behaves just like the original one? I.e. no error message is printed, but the execution is stopped of course. With just calling stop in the error handler, it prints the error message, or, if there is no error message (like in the original interrupt condition), another error happens. tryCatch(Sys.sleep(100), interrupt =

I'm confused by the page documenting tryCatch and friends. I think it describes 3 separate mechanisms: tryCatch (in which control returns to the invoking tryCatch), withCallHandlers (in which control goes up to the calling handler/s but then continues from the point at which signalCondition() was invoked), and withRestarts (I can't tell where control ends up). For tryCatch the docs say

Thanks Luke, On 10 September 2015 at 14:47, <luke-tierney at uiowa.edu> wrote: > Conditions have classes and the condition system is designed around > the idea that classes would be used for this sort of thing. That is > already how tryCatch and withCallingHandlers discriminate the > conditions to handle. That makes sense. Though with my sqrt example, it's just a plain

With tryCatch() it is possible to catch interrupts with tryCatch(). Then you can use a 'finally' statement to clean up, release resources etc. However, how can I "protect" against additional interrupts? This is a concern when the hold down Ctrl+C and generates a sequence of interrupts. Example: tryCatch({ cat("Press Ctrl+C...\n"); Sys.sleep(5); }, interrupt =

Hello, 1. The Situation : ------------------------ The stack traceback is not available when error ouccured in a try(....) -- test.R -------------------------------- f<-function(a){ return ( log(a) ) } try(f("A")) traceback() ------------------------------------------- I get the following message : > try(f("A")) Error in log(x) : Non-numeric argument to mathematical

Thank you Luke for prompt reply. Is it possible then to request a new function to R C API "message" that would equivalent to R "message" function? Similarly as we now have C "warning" and C "error" functions. Best, Jan On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 5:25 PM Tierney, Luke <luke-tierney at uiowa.edu> wrote: > > On Sun, 15 Sep 2019, Jan Gorecki wrote:

The following example involves a function whose on.exit() expression both generates an error and catches the error. The body of the function also generates an error. When calling the function wrapped in a tryCatch, should that tryCatch's error function be given the error from the body of the function, since the one from the on.exit has already been dealt with? Currently the outer tryCatch

Does signalCondition() only work within try-catch blocks? I expected: testSignal <- function() { error <- simpleError("An error!") signalCondition(error) } to do the same thing as testStop <- function() { error <- simpleError("An error!") stop(error) } but testSignal returns NULL without throwing an error. Have I misunderstood something?

I would like to use the 'tryCatch' function but am having a hard time getting my head around it. In 'C' like languages try/catch/finally means try a block of statements and if any throw an error then do the statements in the catch block and then error or not always do the staements in the finally block. In 'R' as best as I can tell the block of staements in the try block is

The suppressMessages and suppressWarnings functions currently suppress all the message or warnings that are generated by the input expression. The ability to suppress only specific messages or warnings is sometimes useful, particularly for cases like file import where there are lots of things that can go wrong. Suppressing only messages that match a regular expression has rightly been rejected

Dear R-devel community, There appears to be an inconsistency in R C API about the exceptions that can be raised from C code. Mapping of R C funs to corresponding R functions is as follows. error -> stop warning -> warning REprintf -> message Rprintf -> cat Rprint/cat is of course not an exception, I listed it just for completeness. The inconsistency I would like to report is

I don't want to return a value, I want to interrupt the computation, that's why I need to re-throw . But before getting back to the user I want to run some cleanup code. G. On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 5:59 PM I?aki ?car <i.ucar86 at gmail.com> wrote: > > El s?b., 28 jul. 2018 a las 18:30, G?bor Cs?rdi > (<csardi.gabor at gmail.com>) escribi?: > > > > Anyone

When batch processing analysis, I use tryCatch() for failure handling and to prevent unwanted interrupts. I write detailed progress to log file and conditions (warnings and errors) are written to the same log file immediately by using withCallingHandlers(..., condition=function(c) cat(c, file=logFile)). However, I would also like to write the call stack to the log file to further simplify

Luke Thanks ? I revised the code to: ERRORMESSAGE <- try(source(USERSCRIPTFILE, local=T), silent=T) print(ERRORMESSAGE) now returns: $value [1] 0 $visible [1] FALSE Not clear what to make of that. Dennis Dennis Fisher MD P < (The "P Less Than" Company) Phone / Fax: 1-866-PLessThan (1-866-753-7784) www.PLessThan.com > On Feb 22, 2018, at 12:45 PM, luke-tierney at

Thanks for tracking this down. Yeah, I should use suppressWarnings(), you are right. Although, readLines() might throw another warning, e.g. for incomplete last lines, and you don't necessarily want to suppress that. TBH I am not sure why that warning is given: ? con <- file(tempfile()) ? open(con) Error in open.connection(con) : cannot open the connection In addition: Warning message: In

>>>>> Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org> >>>>> on Mon, 15 May 2017 16:54:46 -0700 writes: > Hi, > On 05/15/2017 10:41 AM, luke-tierney at uiowa.edu wrote: >> This is getting pretty convoluted. >> >> The current behavior is consistent with the description at the top of >> the help page -- it does not

This is getting pretty convoluted. The current behavior is consistent with the description at the top of the help page -- it does not promise to stop evaluation once the first non-TRUE is found. That seems OK to me -- if you want sequencing you can use stopifnot(A) stopifnot(B) or stopifnot(A && B) I could see an argument for a change that in the multiple argumetn case reports _all_

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

R 3.4.3 OS X Colleagues I have a 20K line script in which I encounter an unexpected problem. If the script detects presence of a particular file USERCODE.txt, it executes: source(?USERCODE.txt?) If that file is not present, the script executes without a problem. There might be syntax errors in USERCODE.txt; therefore, the code above is embedded in a try command:

Hi, Is there currently any way to guarantee that on.exit does not fail to execute the recorded expression because of a user interrupt arriving during function exit? Consider: f <- function() { suspendInterrupts({ on.exit(suspendInterrupts(cntr_on.exit <<- cntr_on.exit + 1L)) cntr_f <<- cntr_f + 1L }) TRUE } It is possible to interrupt this function such that cntr_f