[Rd] Suggestion: Not having to export .conflicts.OK in name spaces
seth at userprimary.net
Mon Mar 22 17:36:14 CET 2010
On 3/22/10 3:57 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
>>>>>> "SF" == Seth Falcon<seth at userprimary.net>
>>>>>> on Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:47:17 -0700 writes:
> SF> On 3/17/10 9:11 AM, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
> >> Currently library() and attach() fail to locate an
> >> existing '.conflicts.OK' in a package wit name space,
> >> unless it is exported. Since there should be little
> >> interest in exporting '.conflicts.OK' otherwise, one may
> >> argue that those methods should look for '.conflicts.OK'
> >> even if it is not exported.
> SF> I guess I agree that there is no real value in forcing
> SF> .conflicts.OK to be exported.
> so do I.
So I guess we agree that Henrik's patch would be worth applying.
@Henrik: if you resend your patch with the additions for attach, I will
see about putting it in.
> SF> OTOH, this seems like a dubious feature to begin. When
> SF> is it a good idea to use it?
> in cases, the package author thinks (s)he knows what (s)he is
> e.g. in the case of Matrix, I could argue that I know about the
> current conflicts, and I would *not* want the users of my
> package be intimidated by warnings about maskings...
I can't say that this convinces me that .conflicts.OK is OK. Are there
package authors who realize they do not know what they are doing enough
to keep the warning messages :-P
Seth Falcon | @sfalcon | http://userprimary.net/
More information about the R-devel