If I want to use with inside a loop, it seems that next gets confused.
To reproduce:
for(lst in list(list(a = 1), list(a = 2), list(a = 3)))
{
with(lst, if(a == 2) next else print(a))
}
I expect 1 and 3 to be printed, but I see
[1] 1
Error in eval(expr, envir, enclos) :
no loop for break/ne
> A side question, which I do not know the answer to, is how users get
> themselves into this state.
I've fallen over this a few times. It happens when you have multiple
R sessions running, and R tries to update Rcpp while it is loaded in
the other session.
For example, I'm working on one proje
(a)/(c) mostly, I think. The crux is that "next" is unhappy about being
evaluated in a different environment than the containing loop. Witness this:
> for (i in 1:10) {if (i == 5) evalq(next); print(i)}
[1] 1
[1] 2
[1] 3
[1] 4
[1] 6
[1] 7
[1] 8
[1] 9
[1] 10
> for (i in 1:10) {if (i == 5) evalq(n
Dear R-Developement Team,
I want to suggest an additiol check to the R CMD check functionality.
Consider the situation where the objects of more than one package are
imported to the NAMESPACE of a third package, e.g. via
import(foo, bar)
in the NAMESPACE file.
There might be situations whe
On 27/10/2016 5:26 AM, Steffen Wagner wrote:
Dear R-Developement Team,
I want to suggest an additiol check to the R CMD check functionality.
Consider the situation where the objects of more than one package are
imported to the NAMESPACE of a third package, e.g. via
import(foo, bar)
in th
Hi Duncan,
On 10/27/2016 05:17 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
[...]
Could you please post it to the bug list as an enhancement request?
Those should be persistent.
If you have never posted to the bug list you will need to be manually
added to the list of people allowed to post. In that case, write
On unix, unless event polling is enabled Sys.sleep just waits in a
select() call (with a SIGINT handler in place) so the elapsed time
isn't checked until after the select call is complete. Rstudio uses
event polling, and in particular sets R_wait_usec to 1, which
means event and interrupt chec
On 27/10/2016 11:58 AM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi Duncan,
On 10/27/2016 05:17 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
[...]
> Could you please post it to the bug list as an enhancement request?
> Those should be persistent.
>
> If you have never posted to the bug list you will need to be manually
> added to the l
