By "...I had forgotten that a package can refer to any of *its own packages*"
I of course meant "...I had forgotten that a package can refer to any of *its own functions*" Guess I should call it a night... G On 23 August 2013 21:49, Gavin Simpson <ucfa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Michael, somewhat embarrassingly, I had forgotten that a > package can refer to any of *its own packages*. So I don't need > analogue:::foo.bar as that is being called from a function in the > analogue namespace. > > Cheers, > > G > > On 23 August 2013 09:27, R. Michael Weylandt > <michael.weyla...@gmail.com> <michael.weyla...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Aug 23, 2013, at 11:15, Gavin Simpson <ucfa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear List, >>> >>> I'm in the process of making tweaks to my various R packages following >>> changes in r-devel for package checks. I'm wondering about the one use >>> of ::: in one of my packages. I am arranging for a call to a >>> non-exported S3 method via do.call. For this I need the arguments of >>> the function and hence I was doing >>> >>> Args <- head(formals(analogue:::wa.default), -1) >>> >>> Following the recent thread on legitimate uses of ::: I think the >>> above is both acceptable and won't generate a Note now with R CMD >>> check following a recent change to that code. But is there a better >>> way to get the formal arguments of a non-exported S3 method? >>> >> >> Something like (untested) >> >> formalsS3 <- function(...) formals(getS3method(...)) >> >> might work. I haven't checked to see how R CMD check feels about >> getS3method() though. >> >> Michael >> >> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> G >>> >>> -- >>> Gavin Simpson >>> >>> ______________________________________________ >>> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > > > > -- > Gavin Simpson, PhD -- Gavin Simpson, PhD ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
