[Rd] Underscores in package names

[neonira Arinoem]

I do not follow you Gabriel. Package name must not use digit numbers.
Tarbal will use them, taken from the DESCRIPTION file, version field.

That's why I consider the weird case name you presented as irrelevant, and
not to be considered.


Le ven. 9 août 2019 à 20:41, Gabriel Becker <gabembecker using gmail.com> a
écrit :

>
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:05 AM neonira Arinoem <neonira using gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Won't it be better to have a convention that allows lowercase, dash,
>> underscore and dot as only valid characters for new package names and keep
>> the ancient format validation scheme for older package names?
>>
>
> Validation isn't the only thing we need to do wrt package names. we also
> need to detect them, and particularly,  in at least one case, extract them
> from package tarball filenames (which we also need to be able to
> detect/find).
>
> If we were writing a new language and people wanted to allow snake case in
> package names, sure, but we're talking about about changing how a small but
> package names and package tarballs have always (or at least a very long
> time, I didn't check) had the same form, and it seems expressive enough to
> me? I mean periods are allowed if you feel a strong need for something
> other than a letter.
>
> Note that this proposal would make mypackage_2.3.1 a valid *package name*,
> whose corresponding tarball name might be mypackage_2.3.1_2.3.2 after a
> patch. Yes its a silly example, but why allow that kind of ambiguity?
>
>
>
> For the record @Ben Bolker <bbolker using gmail.com>
>
> Packages that mix case anywhere in their package name:
>
> > table(grepl("((^[a-z].*[A-Z])|(^[A-Z].*[a-z]))", row.names(a1)))
>
>
> FALSE  TRUE
>
>  8818  5932
>
>
> Packages which start with lower case and have at least one upper
>
> > table(grepl("((^[a-z].*[A-Z]))", row.names(a1)))
>
>
> FALSE  TRUE
>
> 12315  2435
>
>
> Packages which start with uppercase and have at least one lower
>
> > table(grepl("((^[A-Z].*[a-z]))", row.names(a1)))
>
>
> FALSE  TRUE
>
> 11253  3497
>
> Packages which take advantage of the above-mentioned legality of periods
>
> > table(grepl(".", row.names(a1), fixed=TRUE))
>
>
> FALSE  TRUE
>
> 14259   491
>
> Packages with pure lower-case alphabetic names
>
> > table(grepl("^[a-z]+$", row.names(a1)))
>
>
> FALSE  TRUE
>
>  7712  7038
>
>
> Packages with pure upper-case alphabetic names
>
> > table(grepl("^[A-Z]+$", row.names(a1)))
>
>
> FALSE  TRUE
>
> 13636  1114
>
>
> Package with at least one numeric digit in their name
>
> > table(grepl("[0-9]", row.names(a1)))
>
>
> FALSE  TRUE
>
> 14208   542
>
>
> It would be interesting to do an actual analysis of the changes in these
> trends over time, but I Really should be working, so that will have to
> either wait or be done by someone else.
> Best,
> ~G
>
>
>
>> This could be implemented by a single function, taking a strictNaming_b_1
>> parameter which defaults to true. Easy to use, and compliance results will
>> vary according to the parameter value, allowing strict compliance for new
>> package names and lazy compliance for older ones.
>>
>> Doing so allows to enforce a new package name convention while also
>> insuring continuity of compliance for already existing package names.
>>
>> Fabien GELINEAU alias Neonira
>>
>> Le ven. 9 août 2019 à 18:40, Kevin Wright <kw.stat using gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>> > Please, no.  I'd also like to disallow uppercase letters in package
>> names.
>> > For instance, the cuteness of using a capital "R" in package names is
>> > outweighed by the annoyance of trying to remember which packages use an
>> > upper-case letter.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jim Hester <james.f.hester using gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Are there technical reasons that package names cannot be snake case?
>> > > This seems to be enforced by `.standard_regexps()$valid_package_name`
>> > > which currently returns
>> > >
>> > >    "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:].]*[[:alnum:]]"
>> > >
>> > > Is there any technical reason this couldn't be altered to accept `_`
>> > > as well, e.g.
>> > >
>> > >   "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]._]*[[:alnum:]]"
>> > >
>> > > I realize that historically `_` has not always been valid in variable
>> > > names, but this has now been acceptable for 15+ years (since R 1.9.0 I
>> > > believe). Might we also allow underscores for package names?
>> > >
>> > > Jim
>> > >
>> > > ______________________________________________
>> > > R-devel using r-project.org mailing list
>> > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Kevin Wright
>> >
>> >         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________
>> > R-devel using r-project.org mailing list
>> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>> >
>>
>>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-devel using r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]