"Unfelicity" :-) with edit()

Hi, people.  This is about R 2.3.0 under Linux.

It seems that edit() may change a function environment.  Here is 
a transcript, more comments follow:

======================================================================>

fix(f)

f

function ()
{
}

fix(f)

Erreur dans edit(name, file, title, editor) :
        une erreur s'est produite ? la ligne 3
 utilisez une commande du genre
 x <- edit()
 pour corriger

f <- edit()

f

function ()
{
}
<environment: base>
======================================================================<

The initial ``fix(f)`` called an editor, which I exited right away.  For 
the second ``fix(f)``, I used the editor for adding a slash between 
braces, and exited.  The French comment produced by R speaks about an 
error at line 3 and suggests using something like ``x <- edit()`` to 
make a correction.  On the third call to the editor, I remove the slash 
and exit.  Now, the environment of the function became "base".

This has unfortunate effects when editing a more substantial function, 
because for example, "stats" or "utils" is not readily available anymore 
after the editing.  Is it reasonable to suggest an improvement in the 
mechanics of edit(), for alleviating this drawback ?

I'll fix it.

edit() is a hack, so you should expect problems.  You're better off 
keeping your source in an editor and using source() to get it.

There is no way it could preserve the environment of a function [...]

Hi, people.  This is about R 2.3.0 under Linux.

It seems that edit() may change a function environment.  Here is 
a transcript, more comments follow:

======================================================================>

fix(f)

f

function ()
{
}

fix(f)

Erreur dans edit(name, file, title, editor) :
        une erreur s'est produite ? la ligne 3
 utilisez une commande du genre
 x <- edit()
 pour corriger

f <- edit()

f

function ()
{
}
<environment: base>
======================================================================<

The initial ``fix(f)`` called an editor, which I exited right away.  For 
the second ``fix(f)``, I used the editor for adding a slash between 
braces, and exited.  The French comment produced by R speaks about an 
error at line 3 and suggests using something like ``x <- edit()`` to 
make a correction.  On the third call to the editor, I remove the slash 
and exit.  Now, the environment of the function became "base".

This has unfortunate effects when editing a more substantial function, 
because for example, "stats" or "utils" is not readily available anymore 
after the editing.  Is it reasonable to suggest an improvement in the 
mechanics of edit(), for alleviating this drawback ?

[Duncan Murdoch]

I'll fix it.

Thanks, Duncan.  While I quite understand that more serious work should 
be done within real sources files, fixing and editing is still useful 
for quick, evanescent interactive toying.

edit() is a hack, so you should expect problems.  You're better off 
keeping your source in an editor and using source() to get it.

This is not the first time I read such a remark.  Maybe it would be 
worth a note within ?edit.

There is no way it could preserve the environment of a function [...]

That might be worth another note within ?edit.

Speaking of which, this "x <- edit()" usage (interactively suggested by 
fix when it fails to re-parse the result of edition) is not covered by 
?edit.  I mean that by reading ?edit, one does not get information about 
what a mere "edit()" does.  It might be useful that ?edit says a few 
words about this particular usage.

The remaining of this message quotes the original message:

[Fran?ois Pinard]

Hi, people.  This is about R 2.3.0 under Linux.

It seems that edit() may change a function environment.  Here is 
a transcript, more comments follow:

======================================================================>

fix(f)

f

function ()
{
}

fix(f)

Erreur dans edit(name, file, title, editor) :
        une erreur s'est produite ? la ligne 3
 utilisez une commande du genre
 x <- edit()
 pour corriger

f <- edit()

f

function ()
{
}
<environment: base>
======================================================================<

The initial ``fix(f)`` called an editor, which I exited right away.  For 
the second ``fix(f)``, I used the editor for adding a slash between 
braces, and exited.  The French comment produced by R speaks about an 
error at line 3 and suggests using something like ``x <- edit()`` to 
make a correction.  On the third call to the editor, I remove the slash 
and exit.  Now, the environment of the function became "base".

This has unfortunate effects when editing a more substantial function, 
because for example, "stats" or "utils" is not readily available anymore 
after the editing.  Is it reasonable to suggest an improvement in the 
mechanics of edit(), for alleviating this drawback ?