[Rd] Is .packageName part of the official API?

[Duncan Murdoch]

On 12/07/2016 2:55 PM, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
> Hi, I've seen that some packages use .packageName internally to infer
> their own name.  Is that officially supported?  I could not find it
> documented anywhere.
>
> There's utils::packageName(), which internally looks for .packageName.
> However, if the latter is not found, it may return NULL whereas an
> error would be more appropriate if a package name is expected.  Using
> .packageName would give an error if it does not exist.  Also, which is
> minor, using packageName() would add explicit dependency on the utils
> package whereas .packageName doesn't.
>
> So, should I use .packageName or utils::packageName() for this?

You should use utils::packageName.  It is documented; .packageName is not.

Duncan Murdoch