On 4 Nov 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I set my standard libraries in R_LIBS, so when I use lib.loc it is > for experimental things. So I would neither want the .libPaths > changed nor be affected if they were.
With the current semantics, if one is testing a _collection_ of experimental packages that depend on each other, the only way to test the collection is to modify .libPaths. Setting lib.loc only allows one to test a single experimental package against dependencies picked up from R_LIBS. Robert's proposal, as I understand it, would change the meaning of lib.loc so that dependencies would be resolved there --- allowing a collection of experimental packages to be tested against each other. The current behavior could be replicated in this case by putting a given experimental package in a library by itself. Clearly, each choice has a tradeoff. I understand that if one most often tests a single independent experimental package, then the current behavior is most convenient. My preference is for lib.loc grabbing dependencies because I more often deal with packages that have dependencies that I want to test together. + seth ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
