On 27 August 2014 15:24, Hadley Wickham <h.wick...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Is that the cause of these NOTEs? Is the expectation that if I am using a > > function from a package, even a package that I have in Depends:, that I > > have to explicitly declare these imports in NAMESPACE? > > Yes. > > (Otherwise your package won't work if it's only attached and not > loaded. i.e. if someone does analogue::foo() only the imported > functions are available, not the functions in packages you depend on) >
Cheers Hadley. Thanks for the confirmation, but... ...I don't get this; what is the point of Depends? I thought it was "my package needs these other packages to work, i.e. be loaded". Hence it is user error (IMHO ;-) to do `analogue::foo()` without having the dependencies loaded too. This check (whilst having found some things I should have imported and didn't - which is a good thing!) seems to be circumventing the intention of having something in Depends. Is Depends going to go away? > (And really you shouldn't have any packages in depends, they should > all be in imports) I disagree with *any*; having say vegan loaded when one is using analogue is a design decision as the latter borrows heavily from and builds upon vegan. In general I have moved packages that didn't need to be in Depends into Imports; in the version I am currently doing final tweaks on before it goes to CRAN I have remove all but vegan from Depends. Or am I thinking about this in the wrong way? Thanks again Gavin > > Hadley > > > -- > http://had.co.nz/ > -- Gavin Simpson, PhD [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
