[Rd] Underscores in package names

neonira Arinoem neon|r@ @end|ng |rom gm@||@com
Fri Aug 9 21:42:09 CEST 2019 

Yes Brian. That's currently possible.

I am not speaking of what is currently possible but of the rules we should
enforce, using both strict compliance for new rules and lazy compliance for
older packages

Le ven. 9 août 2019 à 21:35, Brian G. Peterson <brian using braverock.com> a
écrit :

> On 2019-08-09 14:27, neonira Arinoem wrote:
> > 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.
>
> ggplot2 ?
>
> Numbers are allowed in package names right now.
>
>
> > 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]]
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > R-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
> --
> Brian G. Peterson
> http://braverock.com/brian/
> Ph: 773-459-4973
> IM: bgpbraverock
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

More information about the R-devel mailing list