On 7/6/05, Uwe Ligges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gabor Grothendieck wrote: > > > On 7/6/05, Uwe Ligges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Gabor Grothendieck wrote: > >> > >> > >>>On 7/6/05, Martin Maechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>"Gabor" == Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>>>>> on Wed, 6 Jul 2005 08:24:49 -0400 writes: > >>>> > >>>>....................... > >>>>....................... > >>>> > >>>> Gabor> I have cleaned up my batch files (somewhat) and posted them to > >>>> Gabor> CRAN. See my recent post: > >>>> Gabor> > >>>> https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2005-July/073400.html > >>>> > >>>> Gabor> If any of this functionality could migrate to R > >>>> Gabor> itself that would be great. > >>>> > >>>> ........ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Gabor> 2. Also if Rcmd CHECK and Rcmd INSTALL were to > >>>> Gabor> process .Rbuildignore like Rcmd BUILD does then > >>>> Gabor> makepkg.bat would not have to do a build first. > >>>> > >>>>No! {We have been here before, and I had explained before that} > >>>>this is really undesired: ".Rbuildignore" should contain what is > >>>>ignored by build, but not by "check". > >>>>It does make sense to have extra code and / or checks for 'R CMD check' > >>>>that I as package developer want to run, but that are > >>>>-- too time consuming > >>>>-- too platform specific > >>>>-- ...... > >>>>to be run during the daily checks on CRAN (e.g.) / > >>>>to be run by others at all. > >>>> > >>>>{And BTW, AFAIK, 'Rcmd' is now `somewhat deprecated' in favor > >>>>of "R CMD" since the latter is portable } > >>>> > >>>>-- > >>>>Martin > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>I think its too heavy handed an approach. This should be up to the package > >>>developer via a switch. I like to put partially written code and other > >>>things > >>>not intended for distribution in .Rbuildignore and don't want them checked > >>>or > >>>installed until I move them out of .Rbuildignore. That makes it > >>>possible to keep > >>>everything together. Without this one must 1. keep them elsewhere > >>>(which I am considering as an alternate approach to what I do now although > >>>it would be a shame) or else 2. write batch files (which I have > >>>written for XP) to do > >>>a prebuild every time one does a check or install. > >>> > >>>One annoying aspect of R CMD is the requirement for capitalization. Maybe > >>>that's ok on UNIX but on Windows one is used to using upper and lower > >>>case interchangeably. Its also annoying to have to write two words > >>>instead of > >>>one for a frequently issued command. At any rate I always call it through > >> > >>Gabor, honestly, this is nonsense. > >> > >>1. Do you expect that R also changes under Windows because you are used > >>to mix upper and lower case and want to say SUMMARY() or rowsums()? > >>2. Do you really thing it is annoying to type "R CMD" rather than > >>"Rcmd"? Hmm, anybody else has a space bar left for Gabor? > >> > >>Best, > >>Uwe > >> > >> > >>>my Rcmd.bat batch file so its not really an issue for me. > > > > > > It was claimed its portable and that is true in the strictest sense that it > > works on both UNIX and Windows but it would be even more > > desirable if it were not just portable but also worked the way the target > > system worked rather than just acting like a UNIX utility does > > on Windows. Ideally it would work as other Windows utilities work, > > e.g. note that we run the following using upper and lower case and > > get the same result: > > > > C:> net use ? > > The syntax of this command is: > > NET USE > > [devicename | *] [\\computername\sharename[\volume] [password | *]] > > ... > > > > C:> NET USE ? > > The syntax of this command is: > > NET USE > > [devicename | *] [\\computername\sharename[\volume] [password | *]] > > ... > > No! That something completely different: If Windows allows to use "net > use" and "NET USE" even if only the latter is the documeted way, OK. > These are, as you mentioned yourself, *Windows utilities* and you don't > want to port this syntax. > > But if you type "R cmd", it is no longer portable, and "Rcmd" for sure > is not. "R CMD" is an R utility --- and R behaves case senstive. >
The desirable philosophy when it comes to portability is that software works in the way the host system works, not in a new way that the software defines for itself for all systems. The problems I and the cited poster had in this regard well illustrate the problem with the current approach. ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
