Re: [Rd] CRAN testing

In addition to what has been said already, you should check C code for -pedantic compiler warnings (in particular GNU extensions) and verify that the package builds with parallel make (e.g. MAKE=make -j8). On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Mick Jordan wrote: > > Is the mechanism by which packag

Re: [Rd] CRAN testing

Some (unofficial) tips. Some of the hardware and software they use is listed here: http://cran.r-project.org/web/checks/check_flavors.html#r-devel-linux-x86_64-debian-clang You can get the current R-release and R-oldrel versions from here: http://rversions.r-pkg.org/r-release http://rversions.r-p

Re: [Rd] RFC: Declaring "foo.bar" as nonS3method() ?!

Analogously to how S4 methods are declared in the code, cf. methods::setMethod(), I'd find it more natural to also declare S3 methods in the code and note in the NAMESPACE. For example: # S3 method summary() for class 'aov': summary.aov <- function(x, ...) { # something } S3class(summary.aov)

Re: [Rd] CRAN testing

> On Jun 12, 2015, at 1:24 AM, Mick Jordan wrote: > > Is the mechanism by which packages are tested on CRAN described > anywhere? Is it by any chance written in R? The FastR > team is interested in > running a virtual CRAN where we can test all the

[Rd] declaring nonS3method

If Martin's proposal for declaring non-S3 methods in NAMESPACE is feasible, it would be very helpful. The packages we support have multiple examples of unfortunately named functions non-S3 functions, so creating a route for migrating them into compliance would be great. best, -skye On 06/12/2

Re: [Rd] RFC: Declaring "foo.bar" as nonS3method() ?!

The notes available off the devloper page https://developer.r-project.org/ describe some of the rationale for the S3 method search design. One thing that has changed since then is that all packages now have name spaces. We could change the search algorithm to skip attached package exports (and pac

Re: [Rd] RFC: Declaring "foo.bar" as nonS3method() ?!

On 12/06/2015 10:53 AM, Hadley Wickham wrote: > To me, it seems like there's actually two problems here: > > 1) Preventing all() from dispatching to all.effects() for objects of > class effects > 2) Eliminating the NOTE in R CMD check > > My impression is that 1) actually causes few problems, par

Re: [Rd] RFC: Declaring "foo.bar" as nonS3method() ?!

> Hadley Wickham > on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:53:20 -0500 writes: > To me, it seems like there's actually two problems here: > 1) Preventing all() from dispatching to all.effects() for objects of > class effects > 2) Eliminating the NOTE in R CMD check Sure. ... and that

Re: [Rd] RFC: Declaring "foo.bar" as nonS3method() ?!

To me, it seems like there's actually two problems here: 1) Preventing all() from dispatching to all.effects() for objects of class effects 2) Eliminating the NOTE in R CMD check My impression is that 1) actually causes few problems, particularly since people are mostly now aware of the problem a

Re: [Rd] RFC: Declaring "foo.bar" as nonS3method() ?!

> Duncan Murdoch writes: > On 12/06/2015 7:16 AM, Kurt Hornik wrote: >>> Duncan Murdoch writes: >> >>> On 12/06/2015 4:12 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: This is a topic ' "apparent S3 methods" note in R CMD check ' from R-package-devel https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-package

Re: [Rd] RFC: Declaring "foo.bar" as nonS3method() ?!

On 12/06/2015 7:16 AM, Kurt Hornik wrote: >> Duncan Murdoch writes: > >> On 12/06/2015 4:12 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: >>> This is a topic ' "apparent S3 methods" note in R CMD check ' >>> from R-package-devel >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-package-devel/2015q2/000126.html >>> >>> whic

Re: [Rd] RFC: Declaring "foo.bar" as nonS3method() ?!

> Duncan Murdoch writes: > On 12/06/2015 4:12 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: >> This is a topic ' "apparent S3 methods" note in R CMD check ' >> from R-package-devel >> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-package-devel/2015q2/000126.html >> >> which is relevant to here because some of us have been

Re: [Rd] RFC: Declaring "foo.bar" as nonS3method() ?!

On 12/06/2015 6:41 AM, John Fox wrote: > And my non-cross-posted cross-posting: > > "Dear Martin, > > Thank you for addressing this issue. Introducing a nonS3method() directive in > NAMESPACE seems a reasonable solution. It could replace export() for > functions with "."s in their names. I thi

Re: [Rd] RFC: Declaring "foo.bar" as nonS3method() ?!

On 12/06/2015 4:12 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: > This is a topic ' "apparent S3 methods" note in R CMD check ' > from R-package-devel > https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-package-devel/2015q2/000126.html > > which is relevant to here because some of us have been thinking > about extending R b

Re: [Rd] RFC: Declaring "foo.bar" as nonS3method() ?!

And my non-cross-posted cross-posting: "Dear Martin, Thank you for addressing this issue. Introducing a nonS3method() directive in NAMESPACE seems a reasonable solution. It could replace export() for functions with "."s in their names. Best, John" On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:12:07 +0200 Martin M

[Rd] RFC: Declaring "foo.bar" as nonS3method() ?!

This is a topic ' "apparent S3 methods" note in R CMD check ' from R-package-devel https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-package-devel/2015q2/000126.html which is relevant to here because some of us have been thinking about extending R because of the issue. John Fox, maintainer of the 'effects