Re: [Rd] RFC: 'igraph' package update and backward compatibility

2011-10-20 Thread Rainer M Krug
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Gábor Csárdi wrote: > Dear R developers, > > I am seeking advice on some $subject matter. > > My package will have an update soon, that is not backward compatible > with the current version. It will likely break much of the existing > code. Many (~50) packages dep

Re: [Rd] RFC: 'igraph' package update and backward compatibility

2011-10-20 Thread Rainer M Krug
Sorry - not iplot, but igraph. On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Rainer M Krug wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Gábor Csárdi wrote: > >> Dear R developers, >> >> I am seeking advice on some $subject matter. >> >> My package will have an update soon, that is not backward compatible >

Re: [Rd] RFC: 'igraph' package update and backward compatibility

2011-10-20 Thread Prof Brian Ripley
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Rainer M Krug wrote: On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:05 PM, G?bor Cs?rdi wrote: Dear R developers, I am seeking advice on some $subject matter. If this is intended to be a CRAN update, then really you need to ask the CRAN crew about the possible implications (and I've sent

Re: [Rd] RFC: 'igraph' package update and backward compatibility

2011-10-20 Thread Gábor Csárdi
Thanks for the insight! It is indeed true that naming the new version 'igraph1' (this is a better name for the change it introduces), is optimal for the existing packages. I was a bit reluctant to do this, because of two reasons. First, igraph exists as a Python package, and a C library as well,

Re: [Rd] RFC: 'igraph' package update and backward compatibility

2011-10-20 Thread Hadley Wickham
> My package will have an update soon, that is not backward compatible > with the current version. It will likely break much of the existing > code. Many (~50) packages depend on 'igraph' and they, too,  will most > probably break with the new version. > > My intended solution is, that I create a s

Re: [Rd] RFC: 'igraph' package update and backward compatibility

2011-10-20 Thread Duncan Murdoch
On 11-10-20 10:56 AM, Hadley Wickham wrote: My package will have an update soon, that is not backward compatible with the current version. It will likely break much of the existing code. Many (~50) packages depend on 'igraph' and they, too, will most probably break with the new version. My inte

Re: [Rd] RFC: 'igraph' package update and backward compatibility

2011-10-20 Thread Hadley Wickham
> We did have an attempt at that for some versions, but I don't think it ever > achieved all of its goals, and we've dropped it. Yes, I remembered it used to be possible to do versioned installs, but I don't think you could ever have them loaded simultaneously. > I'm not sure it would be "optimal

Re: [Rd] RFC: 'igraph' package update and backward compatibility

2011-10-20 Thread Geoff Jentry
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Hadley Wickham wrote: The optimal solution would be if R packages could depend on a specific version of a package, and a user could have multiple packages You used to be able to have a versioned install of a package, and then load a particular version. Not sure when it wa

Re: [Rd] RFC: 'igraph' package update and backward compatibility

2011-10-20 Thread Uwe Ligges
On 20.10.2011 18:25, Geoff Jentry wrote: On Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Hadley Wickham wrote: The optimal solution would be if R packages could depend on a specific version of a package, and a user could have multiple packages You used to be able to have a versioned install of a package, and then load

[Rd] cygwing warming when creating a package in windows

2011-10-20 Thread Alba Martinez-Ruiz
Dear All, I am a beginner creating R packages. I followed the Leisch (2009) tutorial and the document “Writing R Extensions” to write an example. I installed R 2.12.2 (I also tried R2.13.2), the last version of Rtools and the recommended packages in a PC with Windows 7 Home Premium. I can run

Re: [Rd] cygwing warming when creating a package in windows

2011-10-20 Thread Joshua Wiley
That. Cygwin warning is expected on Windows. You can still build the package and it should be fine, although it looks like the documentation may need a bit of tweaking to pass R CMD check. 2.13.2 is the latest version of R, and I would recommend using it over 2.12.2. Both for the improvements

Re: [Rd] cygwing warming when creating a package in windows

2011-10-20 Thread Duncan Murdoch
On 20/10/2011 3:06 PM, Joshua Wiley wrote: That Cygwin warning is expected on Windows. It can be suppressed by setting an environment variable named CYGWIN with value nodosfilewarning, e.g. by doing this at the command line: SET CYGWIN=nodosfilewarning Duncan Murdoch You can still build

Re: [Rd] Speed difference between df$a[1] and df[1,"a"]

2011-10-20 Thread Allan Engelhardt
`$` and `[` are primitives while `[.data.frame` is a longish R function that does all sorts of clever things. On 19/10/11 22:34, Stavros Macrakis wrote: I was surprised to find that df$a[1] is an order of magnitude faster than df[1,"a"]: df<- data.frame(a=1:10) system.time(replicate(10, d

Re: [Rd] Speed difference between df$a[1] and df[1,"a"]

2011-10-20 Thread Thomas Lumley
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote: > I was surprised to find that df$a[1] is an order of magnitude faster than > df[1,"a"]: Yes. This treats a data frame as a list, and is much faster. > I thought this might be because df[,] builds a data frame before simplifying > it to a