On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:05 AM neonira Arinoem <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Won't it be better to have a convention that allows lowercase, dash,
> underscore and dot as only valid characters for new package names and keep
> the ancient format validation scheme for older package names?
>
Validation isn't the only thing we need to do wrt package names. we also
need to detect them, and particularly, in at least one case, extract them
from package tarball filenames (which we also need to be able to
detect/find).
If we were writing a new language and people wanted to allow snake case in
package names, sure, but we're talking about about changing how a small but
package names and package tarballs have always (or at least a very long
time, I didn't check) had the same form, and it seems expressive enough to
me? I mean periods are allowed if you feel a strong need for something
other than a letter.
Note that this proposal would make mypackage_2.3.1 a valid *package name*,
whose corresponding tarball name might be mypackage_2.3.1_2.3.2 after a
patch. Yes its a silly example, but why allow that kind of ambiguity?
For the record @Ben Bolker <bbol...@gmail.com>
Packages that mix case anywhere in their package name:
> table(grepl("((^[a-z].*[A-Z])|(^[A-Z].*[a-z]))", row.names(a1)))
FALSE TRUE
8818 5932
Packages which start with lower case and have at least one upper
> table(grepl("((^[a-z].*[A-Z]))", row.names(a1)))
FALSE TRUE
12315 2435
Packages which start with uppercase and have at least one lower
> table(grepl("((^[A-Z].*[a-z]))", row.names(a1)))
FALSE TRUE
11253 3497
Packages which take advantage of the above-mentioned legality of periods
> table(grepl(".", row.names(a1), fixed=TRUE))
FALSE TRUE
14259 491
Packages with pure lower-case alphabetic names
> table(grepl("^[a-z]+$", row.names(a1)))
FALSE TRUE
7712 7038
Packages with pure upper-case alphabetic names
> table(grepl("^[A-Z]+$", row.names(a1)))
FALSE TRUE
13636 1114
Package with at least one numeric digit in their name
> table(grepl("[0-9]", row.names(a1)))
FALSE TRUE
14208 542
It would be interesting to do an actual analysis of the changes in these
trends over time, but I Really should be working, so that will have to
either wait or be done by someone else.
Best,
~G
> This could be implemented by a single function, taking a strictNaming_b_1
> parameter which defaults to true. Easy to use, and compliance results will
> vary according to the parameter value, allowing strict compliance for new
> package names and lazy compliance for older ones.
>
> Doing so allows to enforce a new package name convention while also
> insuring continuity of compliance for already existing package names.
>
> Fabien GELINEAU alias Neonira
>
> Le ven. 9 août 2019 à 18:40, Kevin Wright <kw.s...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> > Please, no. I'd also like to disallow uppercase letters in package
> names.
> > For instance, the cuteness of using a capital "R" in package names is
> > outweighed by the annoyance of trying to remember which packages use an
> > upper-case letter.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jim Hester <james.f.hes...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Are there technical reasons that package names cannot be snake case?
> > > This seems to be enforced by `.standard_regexps()$valid_package_name`
> > > which currently returns
> > >
> > > "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:].]*[[:alnum:]]"
> > >
> > > Is there any technical reason this couldn't be altered to accept `_`
> > > as well, e.g.
> > >
> > > "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]._]*[[:alnum:]]"
> > >
> > > I realize that historically `_` has not always been valid in variable
> > > names, but this has now been acceptable for 15+ years (since R 1.9.0 I
> > > believe). Might we also allow underscores for package names?
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________
> > > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kevin Wright
> >
> > [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> >
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
