David, why not
call[[1]] <- parse_args The assignment is evaluated in your namespace so that makes sure the call is that of your function. The only downside I see is that in a stack trace you'll see the definition instead of the name. Or possibly do.call(parse_args, as.list(call[-1])) Cheers, Simon PS: Note that ::: is expensive - it probably doesn't matter here, but would in repeatedly called functions. > On 15/12/2022, at 12:19 PM, David Kepplinger <david.kepplin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Dear List, > > I am working on updating the pense package and refactored some of the > methods. I have several functions which take the same arguments, hence I'm > sending all these arguments to an internal function, called `parse_args()`. > Since I want to evaluate the arguments in the caller's environment, I'm > using the following code > > call <- match.call(expand.dots = TRUE) > call[[1]] <- quote(pense:::parse_args) > args <- eval.parent(call) > > Of course, R CMD CHECK complains about the use of `:::`, as it's almost > never needed. I think the above usage would fall into that area of > "almost", but I'm not sure if (a) there's a better approach and (b) the > CRAN team would agree with me. I would have to test (b) by submitting and > working with the CRAN team, but I wanted to ask the list first to see if > I'm missing something obvious. I don't want to export the function > parse_args() as it's not useful for a user, and the use is truly internal. > > Thanks and all the best, > David > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
