Most places that use cat() should use message() instead
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- R
- Stars
- 409
- Forks
- 89
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
@hadley pointed out that cat() is not the best choice for printing information to the user:
http://adv-r.had.co.nz/Exceptions-Debugging.html
"Function authors can also communicate with their users with print() or cat(), but I don't recommend it because it's hard to capture and selectively ignore this sort of output (and it's not a condition, so you can't use any of the useful condition handling tools)."
We should probably just use message() everywhere; almost all of output is intended to be use user messages of some kind.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
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.
Research direction
No files or tests are identified. Search the repository for cat() calls and review whether each produces user-facing output that should use message() instead. Done means the appropriate calls have been converted consistently and the existing behavior remains covered by the repository's checks.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- r
- Domain
- tooling
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100