[Rd] Rgnome depends on obsolete components libglade/libxml (PR#8247)

[Hin-Tak Leung]

Marc Schwartz (via MN) wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 17:14 +0100, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> 
>>Peter Dalgaard wrote:
<snipped>
>>>You mean get it upgraded to xml2 and glade2? Patches would likely be
>>>accepted... 
<snipped>
> 
> According to the R Admin manual (2.2.0) on page 34:
> 
> "This interface is experimental and incomplete. The console offers a
> basic command line editing and history mechanism, along with tool and
> button bars that give a point-and-click console to some R commands. Many
> of the features of the console are currently stubs, and the console is
> **no longer under development**: it has been kept available as an
> example of adding a front-end to R."
> 
> 
> This language (my emphasis added) would suggest that a TODO list does
> not (or should not) exist...so Peter's suggestion would seem spot on.

Peter's suggestion is spot on ("patches would likely be accepted"), 
yours suggestion, on the other hand...

You do understand that, as an *example*, studying it and/or trying
to learn to modify it is useful for future R improvements in
similiar areas, and you have just managed to discourage a few 
individuals from studying a complete if out-dated example.
(yes, I have spent a few hours modifying the code for glade2).

A TODO list doesn't mean that it has to be done by the R foundation
- if you can identify small bug do-able areas that needs improvement,
some individual might come along just for the fun/fame, and in the
end, the R foundation gains an outsider who is knowledgeable about
embedding R. e.g. some college professor might assign that as a
final year computer programming project, or some student might pick
it as one. Is it such a bad thing to have a list of "inadequacies
but nowhere important enough to get fixed any time soon" issues?

The possible gain - somebody decides to take it up, and move forward,
and in so doing, learns some R internals - is it such a bad thing?

Hin-Tak Leung