[Rd] R CMD check issue

[Kevin R. Coombes]

Can you "cheat" that answer by using

if (!exists("v1")) {
    v1 <- env$v1
    v2 <- end$v2
    # ...
}

and then go ahead and use the names as you wish? The CRAN check would go 
away, since you have explicitly defined all the names. But shouldn't the 
run time already know the names, so the definitions get skipped?

     Kevin

On 4/6/2026 3:25 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> This might not be compatible with your need for speed, but you can do
>
>   env$var
>
> to access a variable in the specified environment.  Something similar 
> would work with a list instead of an eime nvironment, but then changes 
> to var would not be saved to the original list, and name completion 
> could hide errors (i.e. env$v doesn't find anything if the variable is 
> named "var", but lst$v would find "var").
>
> In the usual case where you only work with a few variables at a time 
> you would probably save some time with code like
>
>   var <- env$var
>   # work with it.  Changes would need to be explicitly saved!
>
> Duncan Murdoch
>
> On 2026-04-06 2:40 p.m., Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel wrote:
>> I'm doing something less usual in a package (with some help from 
>> others).    The big
>> picture: I'm solving a particular varianct of hidden Markov models, 
>> which involves a
>> zillion calls for a matrix exponential and its derivative, and I've 
>> been doing everything
>> I can think of to speed it up.   The secondary picture is that I 
>> don't like to work with
>> source code files that go on for page after page, I have a terrible time
>> editing/managing/whatever such.
>>
>> The issue: I end up using an envionment trick to pass along a long 
>> list of parameters
>> (about 34 vectors or lists), or I should say to make them findable 
>> without having to send
>> them down the call chain as arguments.   R CMD check flags the pair 
>> of function at the end
>> of the chain, which actually use them, as each having 34 "no visible 
>> binding for global
>> variable  xyz" messages.     In the short term I can just live with 
>> it, but if I ever want
>> to submit to CRAN I'll need something more formal.   I'm happy to 
>> give more details to
>> whomever might want to pitch in.
>>
>> PS. The first pass had about 40 such warnings, i.e, these 'spurious' 
>> ones along with a
>> half dozen misspelled variable names -- I overall like what the check 
>> does for me, it's
>> just overzealous in this case.
>>
>> Terry T.
>>
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel