Dear Luke, thank you very much for your immediate answer. The problem I see is, however, that while one can rewrite ones outer code using tryCatch, one may not have control over the use of try in a given inner function.
Thomas Luke Tierney wrote: > Yes. If you want finer control use tryCatch. > > Best, > > luke > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Thomas Petzoldt wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> is it *really intentional* that the "silent" option of try() does only >> apply to the outer call in nested try constructs? I would assume that a >> silent try() should suppress all error messages regardless where they >> occur, even if they are already handled with other try()'s. >> >> The error message itself should be (and is in both cases) reported by >> the return value of try(). >> >> Thanks in advance >> >> Thomas >> >> >> ## Old behavior (tested with R-2.4.1): >> > try(try(exp(NULL)), silent=TRUE) >> > >> >> >> ## Current behavior (R-2.6.0 unstable, build 42641, WinXP): >> > try(try(exp(NULL)), silent=TRUE) >> Error in exp(NULL) : Non-numeric argument to mathematical function >> > >> >> >> >> > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
