[R-pkg-devel] R feature suggestion: Duplicated function arguments check

On 08/11/2021 11:48 a.m., Avi Gross via R-package-devel wrote:

Vincent,

But is the second being ignored the right result?

In many programming situations, subsequent assignments replace earlier ones.
And consider the way R allows something like this:

func(a=2, b=3, a=4, c=a*b)

Is it clear how to initialize the default for c as it depends on one value
of "a" or the other?

That c=a*b only works with non-standard tidyverse evaluation.? It causes other problems, e.g. the inability to pass ... 
properly (see https://github.com/tidyverse/glue/issues/231 for an example).

Duncan Murdoch

Of course, you could just make multiple settings an error rather than
choosing an arbitrary fix.

R lists are more like a BAG data structure than a SET.

-----Original Message-----
From: R-package-devel <r-package-devel-bounces at r-project.org> On Behalf Of
Vincent van Hees
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 11:25 AM
To: Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>
Cc: r-package-devel at r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] R feature suggestion: Duplicated function
arguments check

Thanks Duncan, I have tried to make a minimalistic example:

myfun = function(...) {
?? input = list(...)
?? mysum = function(A = c(), B= c()) {
???? return(A+B)
?? }
?? if ("A" %in% names(input) & "B" %in% names(input)) {
???? print(mysum(A = input$A, B = input$B))
?? }
}

# test:

myfun(A = 1, B = 2, B = 4)

[1] 3

# So, the second B is ignored.



On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 at 17:03, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>
wrote:

On 08/11/2021 10:29 a.m., Vincent van Hees wrote:

Not sure if this is the best place to post this message, as it is
more

of a

suggestion than a question.

When an R function accepts more than a handful of arguments there is
the risk that users accidentally provide arguments twice, e.g
myfun(A=1, B=2, C=4, D=5, A=7), and if those two values are not the
same it can have frustrating side-effects. To catch this I am
planning to add a check for duplicated arguments, as shown below, in
one of my own functions. I am

now

wondering whether this would be a useful feature for R itself to
operate

in

the background when running any R function that has more than a
certain number of input arguments.

Cheers, Vincent

myfun = function(...) {
??? #check input arguments for duplicate assignments
??? input = list(...)
??? if (length(input) > 0) {
????? argNames = names(input)
????? dupArgNames = duplicated(argNames)
????? if (any(dupArgNames)) {
??????? for (dupi in unique(argNames[dupArgNames])) {
????????? dupArgValues = input[which(argNames %in% dupi)]
????????? if (all(dupArgValues == dupArgValues[[1]])) { # double

arguments,

but no confusion about what value should be
??????????? warning(paste0("\nArgument ", dupi, " has been provided
more

than

once in the same call, which is ambiguous. Please fix."))
????????? } else { # double arguments, and confusion about what value

should

be,
??????????? stop(paste0("\nArgument ", dupi, " has been provided more
than once in the same call, which is ambiguous. Please fix."))
????????? }
??????? }
????? }
??? }
??? # rest of code...
}

Could you give an example where this is needed?? If a named argument
is duplicated, R will catch that and give an error message:

??? > f(a=1, b=2, a=3)
??? Error in f(a = 1, b = 2, a = 3) :
????? formal argument "a" matched by multiple actual arguments

So this can only happen when it is an argument in the ... list that is
duplicated.? But usually those are passed to some other function, so
something like

??? g <- function(...) f(...)

would also catch the duplication in g(a=1, b=2, a=3):

??? > g(a=1, b=2, a=3)
??? Error in f(...) :
????? formal argument "a" matched by multiple actual arguments

The only case where I can see this getting by is where you are never
using those arguments to match any formal argument, e.g.

??? list(a=1, b=2, a=3)

Maybe this should have been made illegal when R was created, but I
think it's too late to outlaw now:? I'm sure there are lots of people
making use of this.

Or am I missing something?

Duncan Murdoch

????[[alternative HTML version deleted]]