Consider masking definition of Rf_error()?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100
- Issue type
- Feature
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Activity status
- Stale
- Domain
- developer-experience
Research direction
Start with the Rf_error() definition used in C++ contexts and the Rcpp::stop() alternative described in the issue. Review the 35-comment thread to determine whether masking is technically viable and what behavior should replace direct Rf_error() use; done means reaching a decided approach that addresses destructor safety.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Somewhat related to a recent post on R-devel, some users will still try to use Rf_error() in C++ code using Rcpp. However, (as is documented) C++ destructors won't run when a longjmp occurs in cases like this. For example:
#include <Rcpp.h>
using namespace Rcpp;
struct A {
A() { Rprintf("A()\n"); }
~A() { Rprintf("~A()\n"); }
};
// [[Rcpp::export]]
SEXP uhoh() {
A a;
Rf_error("Oops!");
}
/*** R
uhoh()
*/
In this example, ~A() is never printed.
We could consider masking the definition of Rf_error() in these contexts. For example, something like:
#define Rf_error(...) \
static_assert(false, "Use of Rf_error() in C++ contexts is unwise: consider using Rcpp::stop() instead.");
There might also be a way to provide our own definition of Rf_error() that "masks" the version provided by R, but I wasn't able to find something immediately obvious.
- Dominant language
- C++
- Stars
- 799
- Forks
- 219
- Avg merge
- 5h 13m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 6
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from RcppCore/Rcpp
-
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 35/100
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 35/100
-
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 25/100
Similar issues
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 86/100
-
Sensor initialization takes very long when `--initial-sim-time` is set to current UNIX timestamp Open
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
gazebosim/gz-sensors#662 · 1 comment ·
-
enhancement
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
-
comp-datalake
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
ClickHouse/ClickHouse#121222 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
LadybirdBrowser/ladybird#12123 ·