Stable lifecycle

eval_bare() is a lower-level version of function base::eval(). Technically, it is a simple wrapper around the C function Rf_eval(). You generally don't need to use eval_bare() instead of eval(). Its main advantage is that it handles stack-sensitive (calls such as return(), on.exit() or parent.frame()) more consistently when you pass an enviroment of a frame on the call stack.

eval_bare(expr, env = parent.frame())

Arguments

expr

An expression to evaluate.

env

The environment in which to evaluate the expression.

Details

These semantics are possible because eval_bare() creates only one frame on the call stack whereas eval() creates two frames, the second of which has the user-supplied environment as frame environment. When you supply an existing frame environment to base::eval() there will be two frames on the stack with the same frame environment. Stack-sensitive functions only detect the topmost of these frames. We call these evaluation semantics "stack inconsistent".

Evaluating expressions in the actual frame environment has useful practical implications for eval_bare():

  • return() calls are evaluated in frame environments that might be burried deep in the call stack. This causes a long return that unwinds multiple frames (triggering the on.exit() event for each frame). By contrast eval() only returns from the eval() call, one level up.

  • on.exit(), parent.frame(), sys.call(), and generally all the stack inspection functions sys.xxx() are evaluated in the correct frame environment. This is similar to how this type of calls can be evaluated deep in the call stack because of lazy evaluation, when you force an argument that has been passed around several times.

The flip side of the semantics of eval_bare() is that it can't evaluate break or next expressions even if called within a loop.

See also

eval_tidy() for evaluation with data mask and quosure support.

Examples

# eval_bare() works just like base::eval() but you have to create # the evaluation environment yourself: eval_bare(quote(foo), env(foo = "bar"))
#> [1] "bar"
# eval() has different evaluation semantics than eval_bare(). It # can return from the supplied environment even if its an # environment that is not on the call stack (i.e. because you've # created it yourself). The following would trigger an error with # eval_bare(): ret <- quote(return("foo")) eval(ret, env())
#> [1] "foo"
# eval_bare(ret, env()) # "no function to return from" error # Another feature of eval() is that you can control surround loops: bail <- quote(break) while (TRUE) { eval(bail) # eval_bare(bail) # "no loop for break/next" error } # To explore the consequences of stack inconsistent semantics, let's # create a function that evaluates `parent.frame()` deep in the call # stack, in an environment corresponding to a frame in the middle of # the stack. For consistency with R's lazy evaluation semantics, we'd # expect to get the caller of that frame as result: fn <- function(eval_fn) { list( returned_env = middle(eval_fn), actual_env = current_env() ) } middle <- function(eval_fn) { deep(eval_fn, current_env()) } deep <- function(eval_fn, eval_env) { expr <- quote(parent.frame()) eval_fn(expr, eval_env) } # With eval_bare(), we do get the expected environment: fn(rlang::eval_bare)
#> $returned_env #> <environment: 0x80e7500> #> #> $actual_env #> <environment: 0x80e7500> #>
# But that's not the case with base::eval(): fn(base::eval)
#> $returned_env #> <environment: 0x89108b8> #> #> $actual_env #> <environment: 0x8919650> #>