Background
Packages can include a lot of functions. Some of them require informative error messages, and perhaps some comments in the function to explain what/why is happening. An example, f1 in a hypothetical f1.R file. All documentation and comments (both why the error and why the condition) in one place.
f1 <- function(x){
if(!is.character(x)) stop("Only characters suported")
# user input ...
# .... NaN problem in g()
# ....
# ratio of magnitude negative integer i base ^ i is positive
if(x < .Machine$longdouble.min.exp / .Machine$longdouble.min.exp) stop("oof, an error")
log(x)
}
f1(-1)
# >Error in f1(-1) : oof, an error
I create a separate conds.R, specifying a function (and w warning, s suggestion) etc, for example.
e <- function(x){
switch(
as.character(x),
"1" = "Only character supported",
# user input ...
# .... NaN problem in g()
# ....
"2" = "oof, and error") |>
stop()
}
Then in, say, f.R script I can define f2 as
f2 <- function(x){
if(!is.character(x)) e(1)
# ratio of magnitude negative integer i base ^ i is positive
if(x < .Machine$longdouble.min.exp / .Machine$longdouble.min.exp) e(2)
log(x)
}
f2(-1)
#> Error in e(2) : oof, and error
Which does throw the error, and on top of it a nice traceback & rerun with debug option in the console. Further, as package maintainer I would prefer this as it avoids considering writing terse if statements + 1-line error message or aligning comments in a tryCatch statement.
Question
Is there a reason (not opinion on syntax) to avoid writing a conds.R in a package?
There is no reason to avoid writing
conds.R. This is very common and good practice in package development, especially as many of the checks you want to do will be applicable across many functions (like asserting the input is character, as you've done above. Here's a nice example fromdplyr.Here, both functions rely code written in join-cols.R. Both call
join_cols()which in turn callscheck_duplicate_vars(), which I've copied the source code from:Although different in syntax from what you wrote, it's designed to provide the same behaviour, and shows it is possible to include in a package and no reason (from my understanding) not to do this. However, I would add a few syntax points based on your code above:
if()statement) inside the package with the error raising to reduce repeating yourself in other areas you use the function.dplyrexample above. This makes the error more clear to the user what is causing the problem, in this case, that thexcolumn is not unique indf.#> Error in e(2) : oof, and errorin your example is more obscure to the user, especially ase()is likely not exported in the NAMESPACE and they would need to parse the source code to understand where the error is generated. If you usestop(..., .call = FALSE) or passing the calling environment through the nested functions, like in join-cols.R, then you can avoid not helpful information in thetraceback(). This is for instance suggested in Hadley's Advanced R: