Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

Having written the 'lorentz' ,'Davies' and 'schwarzschild' packages, I'm interested in packages that are named for a particular person. There are (by my count) 34 packages on CRAN like this, with names that are the surname of a particular (real) person. Of these 34, only 7 are capitalized. hanki

Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

On 09/08/2019 4:37 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote: Duncan, On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:17 PM Duncan Murdoch > wrote: On 09/08/2019 2:41 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote: > Note that this proposal would make mypackage_2.3.1 a valid *package name*, > whose

Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

Duncan, On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:17 PM Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On 09/08/2019 2:41 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote: > > 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 e

Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

Ugh, but not *as* ambiguous as the proposed example (you can still split unambiguously on "_"; yes, you could split on "last _" in Gabriel's example, but ...) On 2019-08-09 4:17 p.m., Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On 09/08/2019 2:41 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote: >> Note that this proposal would make my

Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

On 09/08/2019 10:23 a.m., Jim Hester wrote: To be clear, I'd be happy to contribute code to make this work, with the changes mentioned by Duncan and elsewhere in the codebase, if someone on R-core was interested in reviewing it. You seem to have ignited a lot of discussion. Just to add my own

Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

On 09/08/2019 2:41 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote: 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? CRAN already has a package named

Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

Yes Brian. That's currently possible. I am not speaking of what is currently possible but of the rules we should enforce, using both strict compliance for new rules and lazy compliance for older packages Le ven. 9 août 2019 à 21:35, Brian G. Peterson a écrit : > On 2019-08-09 14:27, neonira Ari

Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

Neonira, On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:27 PM neonira Arinoem wrote: > I do not follow you Gabriel. Package name must not use digit numbers. > Tarbal will use them, taken from the DESCRIPTION file, version field. > I was referring to Jim Hester's original proposal, which AFAIU was just to add "_" to

Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

Naming policies are always tricky. The one proposed by Hadley, as the one proposed by Google, are usable but not optimal according to most common needs, that are 1. Name a package 2. Name a class 3. Name a function 4. Name a parameter of a function 5. Name a variable My approach is the following

Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

On 2019-08-09 14:27, neonira Arinoem wrote: I do not follow you Gabriel. Package name must not use digit numbers. Tarbal will use them, taken from the DESCRIPTION file, version field. That's why I consider the weird case name you presented as irrelevant, and not to be considered. ggplot2 ?

Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

I do not follow you Gabriel. Package name must not use digit numbers. Tarbal will use them, taken from the DESCRIPTION file, version field. That's why I consider the weird case name you presented as irrelevant, and not to be considered. Le ven. 9 août 2019 à 20:41, Gabriel Becker a écrit : > >

Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:05 AM neonira Arinoem 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 t

Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

> Creeping code complexity ... > > I like to think that the cuteR names will have a Darwinian > disadvantage in the long run. FWIW Hadley Wickham argues (rightly, I > think) against mixed-case names: > http://r-pkgs.had.co.nz/package.html#naming. Good development environments will offer content

Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

Creeping code complexity ... I like to think that the cuteR names will have a Darwinian disadvantage in the long run. FWIW Hadley Wickham argues (rightly, I think) against mixed-case names: http://r-pkgs.had.co.nz/package.html#naming. I too am guilty of picking mixed-case package names in th

Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

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? This could be implemented by a single function, taking a strictNaming_b_1 parameter which de

Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

Hi Jim, While its true that it wouldn't be *particularly *hard^^ to adapt the base code to change this, there is certainly a non-zero amount of user/package code that relies on the well-defined package tarball naming scheme as well. I know because I've written some myself in switchr/GRAN* but I se

Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

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 wrote: > Are there

Re: [Rd] Underscores in package names

To be clear, I'd be happy to contribute code to make this work, with the changes mentioned by Duncan and elsewhere in the codebase, if someone on R-core was interested in reviewing it. Jim On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:05 AM Duncan Murdoch wrote: > > On 08/08/2019 10:31 a.m., Jim Hester wrote: > > A

Re: [Rd] Producing different text formats in R

Thank you for your fast answer. It just works fine now. And apologies for attaching heavy files. Lluís. > > "Lluís" ==writes: > > Lluís> Dear all, > Lluís> I am facing a strange problem with text files formats. > > Lluís> I am currently using a C++ code named voro++ > (htt

Re: [Rd] Appetite for eliminating dependency on Perl

Dunno about runtime. We used to have much more - all the Rdconv stuff used to be based on pattern matching by Perl scripts, but they were converted to R scripts and later to use proper parsers. For building, if you ever need to regenerate a configure script or write your own for a package, not

[Rd] Appetite for eliminating dependency on Perl

Preamble: I am in no way opposed to Perl in general - I love Perl and probably always will. R currently has Perl as both a build-time and run-time dependency. This adds about 200 Mb, give or take, to the required environment size (as measured in CentOS - looks like it might be a bit smaller in Ub