error reprex about constructive HOT 4 CLOSED

out of scope, moved to debugverse
moodymudskipper/debugverse#35

from constructive.

Reopening as I changed my mind, this is useful and not necessarily that hard to do, at least for simple cases.

This doesn't need a dependency on reprex.

The following will reconstruct a but not b, it might also reconstruct foo

construct_reprex(foo(x = a, y = b), nse = "y")

We might be more general and construct every object that is needed, this would need more static analysis a la {flow}

construct_reprex({
  foo(x = a, y = b)
  ...
  }, nse = list(foo = "y")

Or maybe we don't worry about NSE and we just construct what exists ? and is used ? we might have false positives constructed but user can just remove those from produced code.

If object is found in data with same name, no code needed to reconstruct it.

If construct_reprex() is called without its main argument it will inspect sys.call(-1), and there it might inspect everything except args given through nse arg, or everything not yet evaled (less convenient probably)?

from constructive.

Or we just try to eval anyway, it's not super clean but the problematic cases (forcing a NSE expression that has wrong behaviour) should be really rare. This would make it really easy to design and use, we'd doc the caveats.

from constructive.

We can now use options(error = recover) with construct_reprex()

from constructive.