[Rd] legitimate use of :::
rh at knut-krueger.de
Tue May 13 18:14:16 CEST 2014
Is there another new solution for this issue?
especially I would like to use:
the use of this is suggested in the completion.r file of utils:
## test some typical completion attempts
testLine <- function(line, cursor = nchar(line))
(full quote because of the age of the tread)
Kind regards Knut
Am 22.08.2013 20:57, schrieb Michael Friendly:
> On 8/22/2013 7:45 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
>> On 22.08.2013 07:45, Yihui Xie wrote:
>>> So now R CMD check starts to warn against :::, but I believe sometimes
>>> it is legitimate to use it when developing R packages. For example, I
>>> have some utils functions that are not exported but I want to share
>>> them across the packages that I maintain. I do not need to coordinate
>>> with other authors about these internal functions since I'm the only
>>> author and I know clearly what I'm doing, and I want to avoid copying
>>> and pasting the code across packages just to avoid the NOTE in R CMD
>>> check. What should I do in this case?
>> Nothing. The way you describe above seems to be a reasonable usage, iff
>> you are the same maintainer who knows what is going on. Other
>> maintainers should not use one of your not exported (hence non API)
>> functions, of course.
>> Uwe Ligges
> Related to this is the use of other-package unexported utility functions
> that don't pass Uwe's iff test, but I, as maintainer,
> want to use in my package.
> Cases in point: in heplots, I had used stats:::Pillai, stats:::Wilks,
> stats:::Roy and stats:::LH for calculation in one of my functions.
> Similarly, I had a need to use car:::df.terms, also unexported, but
> don't want to ask John Fox to export it just for my use. Uwe's
> reply suggests that I should not be using car:::df.terms, however.
> To avoid the NOTEs (which often triggers a 'pls fix' upon submission to
> CRAN), I simply copied/pasted these functions to my package, but this
> seems wasteful.
More information about the R-devel