Hadley Wickham
Hadley Wickham
Also related to #1516
I think I'd prefer `check_double()` and `check_integer()` although this might be overly abusing the difference between what people mostly mean when they say integer vector and the precise technical definition.
@lionel- right, but I think vector and scalar checks are different enough that they can use different names/conventions (e.g. string vs character, bool vs logical).
@khusmann I'm pretty sure we don't want a scalar prefix because `scalar_logical` implies something slightly different to `bool` — namely in most cases that you're accepting a scalar, you don't...
Definitely don't want two duplicated checks here. I don't think we need a check function for every `is_` function since our understanding of useful types has evolved since we created...
Would you mind following the advice in https://dbplyr.tidyverse.org/articles/reprex.html to create a reprex?
I've closed this issue due to lack of requested reprex. If you still care about this bug, please open a new issue with a reprex.
Anything is possible, but the place to start would be with a reprex.
That suggests that dynamite is evaluating the generated code in the global environment. If you look at the traceback: ``` ▆ 1. ├─dynamite::dynamite(...) 2. │ └─dynamite:::dynamite_stan(...) 3. │ ├─dynamite:::ifelse_(...) 4....
The problem is that when you set a mode in `apropos()` it has to evaluate every binding, and that triggers conflicted. You could maybe argue that this is a bug...