Dear R-devel,
I don't think this is expected :
foo <- function() "hello"
trace2 <- function(fun) trace(fun, quote(print("!!!")))
base::fun
# Object with tracing code, class "functionWithTrace"
# Original definition:
# function() "hello"
#
# ## (to see the tracing code, look at body(object))
`untrace()` has the same behavior.
This is inconsistent with how debug works :
foo <- function() "hello"
debug2 <- function(fun) debug(fun)
debug2(foo)
isdebugged(foo)
# [1] TRUE
This can be worked around by defining :
trace2 <- function(fun) eval.parent(substitute(trace(fun,
quote(print("!!!")))
but I believe the current behavior is undesired and it'd be better to make
it behave as `debug()`, or to throw an error.
Best,
Antoine
trace creates object in base namespace if called on function argument
5 messages · Antoine Fabri, Tomas Kalibera
Apologies there is one line missing in my last email, the code should be :
foo <- function() "hello"
trace2 <- function(fun) trace(fun, quote(print("!!!")))
trace2(foo) # <- THIS LINE WAS MISSING
base::fun
Best,
Antoine
Le mar. 25 ao?t 2020 ? 22:02, Antoine Fabri <antoine.fabri at gmail.com> a
?crit :
Dear R-devel,
I don't think this is expected :
foo <- function() "hello"
trace2 <- function(fun) trace(fun, quote(print("!!!")))
base::fun
# Object with tracing code, class "functionWithTrace"
# Original definition:
# function() "hello"
#
# ## (to see the tracing code, look at body(object))
`untrace()` has the same behavior.
This is inconsistent with how debug works :
foo <- function() "hello"
debug2 <- function(fun) debug(fun)
debug2(foo)
isdebugged(foo)
# [1] TRUE
This can be worked around by defining :
trace2 <- function(fun) eval.parent(substitute(trace(fun,
quote(print("!!!")))
but I believe the current behavior is undesired and it'd be better to make
it behave as `debug()`, or to throw an error.
Best,
Antoine
Please note that this is documented in ?trace. "fun" is matched to what, it is a _name_ of the function to be traced, which is traced in the top-level environment. I don't know why it was designed this way, but it is documented in detail, and hence the expected behavior. Debugging is often, and also in R, implemented in the core. Tracing is implemented on top without specific support, it thus cannot do some things debugging can do. Tomas
On 8/26/20 3:31 AM, Antoine Fabri wrote:
Apologies there is one line missing in my last email, the code should be :
foo <- function() "hello"
trace2 <- function(fun) trace(fun, quote(print("!!!")))
trace2(foo) # <- THIS LINE WAS MISSING
base::fun
Best,
Antoine
Le mar. 25 ao?t 2020 ? 22:02, Antoine Fabri <antoine.fabri at gmail.com> a
?crit :
Dear R-devel,
I don't think this is expected :
foo <- function() "hello"
trace2 <- function(fun) trace(fun, quote(print("!!!")))
base::fun
# Object with tracing code, class "functionWithTrace"
# Original definition:
# function() "hello"
#
# ## (to see the tracing code, look at body(object))
`untrace()` has the same behavior.
This is inconsistent with how debug works :
foo <- function() "hello"
debug2 <- function(fun) debug(fun)
debug2(foo)
isdebugged(foo)
# [1] TRUE
This can be worked around by defining :
trace2 <- function(fun) eval.parent(substitute(trace(fun,
quote(print("!!!")))
but I believe the current behavior is undesired and it'd be better to make
it behave as `debug()`, or to throw an error.
Best,
Antoine
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Hi Tomas, The doc indeed describes `what` as "the name, possibly quote()d, of a function to be traced or untraced". This is a good argument not to change the function and make it behave more like debug. However the doc also tells us "A call to trace allows you to insert debugging code (e.g., a call to browser or recover) at chosen places in any function" and "The trace function operates by constructing a revised version of the function (or of the method, if signature is supplied), and assigning the new object back where the original was found". In the issue I report a function was created in the base environment, which is not "where the function was found". It's not clear to me what "where it was found" would mean in that case, but I would assume the execution environment of trace2, or maybe the calling environment (global in that case), or parent of foo (global here again), but not the base namespace. It would make sense to me to either have a traced fun in the execution environment, or to have an error. Best, Antoine Le mer. 26 ao?t 2020 ? 14:17, Tomas Kalibera <tomas.kalibera at gmail.com> a ?crit :
Please note that this is documented in ?trace. "fun" is matched to what, it is a _name_ of the function to be traced, which is traced in the top-level environment. I don't know why it was designed this way, but it is documented in detail, and hence the expected behavior. Debugging is often, and also in R, implemented in the core. Tracing is implemented on top without specific support, it thus cannot do some things debugging can do. Tomas On 8/26/20 3:31 AM, Antoine Fabri wrote:
Apologies there is one line missing in my last email, the code should be
:
foo <- function() "hello"
trace2 <- function(fun) trace(fun, quote(print("!!!")))
trace2(foo) # <- THIS LINE WAS MISSING
base::fun
Best,
Antoine
Le mar. 25 ao?t 2020 ? 22:02, Antoine Fabri <antoine.fabri at gmail.com> a
?crit :
Dear R-devel,
I don't think this is expected :
foo <- function() "hello"
trace2 <- function(fun) trace(fun, quote(print("!!!")))
base::fun
# Object with tracing code, class "functionWithTrace"
# Original definition:
# function() "hello"
#
# ## (to see the tracing code, look at body(object))
`untrace()` has the same behavior.
This is inconsistent with how debug works :
foo <- function() "hello"
debug2 <- function(fun) debug(fun)
debug2(foo)
isdebugged(foo)
# [1] TRUE
This can be worked around by defining :
trace2 <- function(fun) eval.parent(substitute(trace(fun,
quote(print("!!!")))
but I believe the current behavior is undesired and it'd be better to
make
it behave as `debug()`, or to throw an error. Best, Antoine
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Hi Antoine,
ok, I thought you were reporting that
> foo <- function() "hello"
> trace2 <- function(fun) trace(fun, quote(print("!!!")))
> trace2(foo)
> base::fun
in error did not trace "foo" in the top-level environment. This is,
however, expected, because "trace" is called with argument fun, so the
name of the function binding to replace is "fun" (not "foo"), and "fun"
does not exist in the top-level environment. You cannot wrap "trace"
like this.
If you meant to report that instead of throwing an error that an object
named "fun" was not found, this example inserts the instrumented code
into "base", that I also find surprising. The behavior I would have
expected is like with primitive tracing
> foo <- function() "hello"
> trace2 <- function(fun) trace(fun)
> trace2(foo)
> base::fun
Error in get(name, envir = ns, inherits = FALSE) : object 'fun' not found
If you are interested in this problem, feel free to investigate in more
detail (validate it is a bug via reading the documentation in detail,
reading the code, debugging, checking the commit history) and if it
turns out to be really a bug, feel free to submit a well-tested minimal
patch, via bugzilla.
Thanks,
Tomas
On 8/26/20 4:39 PM, Antoine Fabri wrote:
Hi Tomas,
The doc indeed describes `what` as "the name, possibly quote()d, of a
function to be traced or untraced".
This is a good argument not to change the function and make it behave
more like debug.
However the doc also tells us "A call to trace allows you to insert
debugging code (e.g., a call to browser or recover) at chosen places
in any function" and "The trace function operates by constructing a
revised version of the function (or of the method, if signature is
supplied), and assigning the new object back where the original was
found". In the issue I report a function was created in the base
environment, which is not "where the function was found". It's not
clear to me what "where it was found" would mean in that case, but I
would assume the execution environment of trace2, or maybe the calling
environment (global in that case), or parent of foo (global here
again), but not the base namespace.
It would make sense to me to either have a traced fun in the execution
environment, or to have an error.
Best,
Antoine
Le?mer. 26 ao?t 2020 ??14:17, Tomas Kalibera <tomas.kalibera at gmail.com
<mailto:tomas.kalibera at gmail.com>> a ?crit?:
Please note that this is documented in ?trace. "fun" is matched to
what,
it is a _name_ of the function to be traced, which is traced in the
top-level environment. I don't know why it was designed this way,
but it
is documented in detail, and hence the expected behavior.
Debugging is often, and also in R, implemented in the core.
Tracing is
implemented on top without specific support, it thus cannot do some
things debugging can do.
Tomas
On 8/26/20 3:31 AM, Antoine Fabri wrote:
> Apologies there is one line missing in my last email, the code
should be :
>
> foo <- function() "hello"
> trace2 <- function(fun) trace(fun, quote(print("!!!")))
> trace2(foo) # <- THIS LINE WAS MISSING
> base::fun
>
> Best,
>
> Antoine
>
> Le mar. 25 ao?t 2020 ? 22:02, Antoine Fabri
<antoine.fabri at gmail.com <mailto:antoine.fabri at gmail.com>> a
> ?crit :
>
>> Dear R-devel,
>>
>> I don't think this is expected :
>>
>> foo <- function() "hello"
>> trace2 <- function(fun) trace(fun, quote(print("!!!")))
>> base::fun
>> # Object with tracing code, class "functionWithTrace"
>> # Original definition:
>> # function() "hello"
>> #
>> # ## (to see the tracing code, look at body(object))
>>
>> `untrace()` has the same behavior.
>>
>> This is inconsistent with how debug works :
>>
>> foo <- function() "hello"
>> debug2 <- function(fun) debug(fun)
>> debug2(foo)
>> isdebugged(foo)
>> # [1] TRUE
>>
>> This can be worked around by defining :
>>
>> trace2 <- function(fun) eval.parent(substitute(trace(fun,
>> quote(print("!!!")))
>>
>> but I believe the current behavior is undesired and it'd be
better to make
>> it behave as `debug()`, or to throw an error.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>? ? ? ?[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org <mailto:R-devel at r-project.org> mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel