R-alpha: a question on terminology
Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:39:52 +0200
>>>>> Martin Maechler writes:
>>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Hornik <email@example.com> writes:
Kurt> Whereas we typically refer to the add-on `modules' as `libraries' (viz
Kurt> also the way these are represented in the search list, and the variable
Kurt> .Libraries), S speaks about `sections'.
> [.Libraries are not used anymore ...
> search() & .Provided should be enough, ...]
Kurt> Shall we stay with our terminology?
> I think so.
Kurt> Or instead, speak of `sections',
Kurt> Shall we stay with our terminology? Or instead, speak of `sections',
Kurt> `packages', `modules', ...?
> Or use something which S does not use at all,
> since 'require(.); provide(.)' and Thomas Lumley's
> autoload(..) features enable an entirely different approach.
Thanks to Martin and Ross for the immediate response.
> I like "packages". Modules have namespace implications which the
> present setup does not provide.
I guess we have a decision then, and will refer to an `add-on' as a
>>> PACKAGE <<<
E.g., the PACKAGE `mva', ...
(And hope than when R conquers the world there will be real modules.)
To make things consistent, could we PLEASE make the corresponding
changes so that search() shows
rather than "library:base"?
Locations I found were
STRING(ans)[n-1] = mkChar("library:base");
suicide("unable to open the base library\n");
and in src/library/base/funs/library
I will meanwhile change things in the FAQ accordingly.
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !) To: firstname.lastname@example.org