Obvious? How about "obscurity"? Just directly use pkg::fun if you have name collision. -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.
On November 16, 2017 4:46:15 PM PST, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> wrote: >On 16/11/2017 4:53 PM, Boris Steipe wrote: >> Large packages sometimes mask each other's functions and that creates >a headache, especially for teaching code, since function signatures may >depend on which order packages were loaded in. One of my students >proposed using the idiom >> >> <function> <- <package>::<function> >> >> ... in a preamble, when we use just a small subset of functions from >a larger package. I like that idea and can't see obvious >disadvantages(1). >> >> Are there subtle risks to that approach? > >You might do it twice. R isn't going to complain if you have > >filter <- stats::filter > ># some other code here... > >filter <- dplyr::filter > >in your code, but the second one will overwrite the first one. > >The normal way to handle this is in the NAMESPACE file, where you >should >have > >importFrom(stats, filter) > >If you then have > >importFrom(dplyr, filter) > >you should get an warning: > >Warning: replacing previous import ‘stats::filter’ by ‘dplyr::filter’ >when loading ‘testpkg’. > >Duncan Murdoch > >______________________________________________ >R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see >https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help >PLEASE do read the posting guide >http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html >and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
