[R] Homemade packages.

[Rolf Turner]

Dear Brian:

Thanks for your further explanation about packages in R.

You wrote

>  They [i.e. packages installed into a library ] constitute binary
>  not source packages.

	The distinction between the two concepts appears not to
	be made anywhere in the documentation as far as I can
	see.  At least it is not made prominently.

	Furthermore the distinction is unique to R --- i.e. it
	does not exist in S[plus] (see below), which is where
	I'm coming from.

>  > 	There appears to me to no special requirements for the
>  > 	directory `lib' and in particular nothing saying that `lib'
>  > 	cannot be the current working directory.
>  

>  Well, of course it can, but it should not contain existing source
>  packages of the same name!  That's just adding confusion. It doesn't
>  say so, because I suspect no one considered doing something *that*
>  confusing.

	Why is it confusing?  Unless the distinction between the
	two concepts of ``source'' and ``binary'' packages has been
	made --- and perhaps the reason for having the two distinct
	concepts elucidated! --- how could the ordinary mortal
	anticipate that a distinction has to be made?  No such
	distinction exists in Splus.  In Splus you simply build a
	``chapter''; there is no ``source'' chapter and ``binary''
	chapter.  And no confusion.

	O.K.  R is different here; no problem with that.  But the
	difference should be emphasized to the unwary --- especially
	when there is the risk a large amount of code and
	documentation being destroyed without warning.

						cheers,

							Rolf
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._