[Rd] Underscores in package names
murdoch@dunc@n @end|ng |rom gm@||@com
Sat Aug 10 02:23:28 CEST 2019
On 09/08/2019 4:37 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:17 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan using gmail.com
> <mailto:murdoch.duncan using gmail.com>> wrote:
> On 09/08/2019 2:41 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote:
> > 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?
> CRAN already has a package named "FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2", whose tarball is
> FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2_3.2.tar.gz, so I think we've already lost that game.
> I suppose technically 2 is a valid version number for a package (?) so I
> suppose you have me there. But as Ben pointed out while I was writing
> this, all I can really say is that in practice they read to me (as
> someone who has administered R on a large cluster and written
> build-system software for it) as substantially different levels of
> ambiguity. I do acknowledge, as Ben does, that yes a more complex
> regular expression/splitting algorithm can be written that would handle
> the more general package names. I just don't personally see a motivation
> that justifies changing something this fundamental (even if it is both
> narrow and was initially more or less arbitrarily chosen) about R at
> this late date.
> I guess at the end of the day, I guess what I'm saying is that breaking
> and changing things is sometimes good, but if we're going to rock the
> boat personally I'd want to do so going after bigger wins than this one.
> Thats just my opinion though.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I agree with you. I was just saying that the
particular argument based on ugly tarball names isn't the reason.
More information about the R-devel