[R-pkg-devel] duplicate function during build

[Sven E. Templer]

Despite it might help, learning/using git is not tackling this specific problem, I suggest code that does:

sed -e 's/^[\ \t]*//' -e 's/#.*//' R/* | awk '/function/{print $1}' | sort | uniq -d

or

https://gist.github.com/setempler/7fcf2a3a737ce1293e0623d2bb8e08ed
(any comments welcome)

If one knows coding R, it might be more productive developing a tiny tool for that, instead of learning a new (and complex) one (as git).

Nevertheless, git is great!

Best wishes,

Sven

---

web:     www.templer.se
twitter: @setempler
> On 23 Jul 2016, at 16:17, Hadley Wickham <h.wickham at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I think this sort of meta problem is best solved with svn/git because you
> can easily see if the changes you think you made align with the changes you
> actually made. Learning svn or git is a lot of work, but the payoff is
> worth it.
> 
> Hadley
> 
> On Friday, July 22, 2016, ProfJCNash <profjcnash at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In trying to rationalize some files in a package I'm working on, I
>> copied a function from one file to another, but forgot to change the
>> name of one of them. It turns out the name of the file containing the
>> "old" function was later in collation sequence than the one I was
>> planning to be the "new" one. To debug some issues, I put some print()
>> and cat() statements in the "new" file, but after building the package,
>> they weren't there. Turns out the "old" function got installed, as might
>> be expected if files processed in order. Debugging this took about 2
>> hours of slightly weird effort with 2 machines and 3 OS distributions
>> before I realized the problem. It's fairly obvious that I should expect
>> issues in this case, but not so clear how to detect the source of the
>> problem.
>> 
>> Question: Has anyone created a script to catch such duplicate functions
>> from different files during build? I think a warning message that there
>> are duplicate functions could save some time and effort. Maybe it's
>> already there, but I saw no obvious message. In this case, I'm only
>> working in R.
>> 
>> I've found build.R in the R tarball, which is where I suspect such a
>> check should go, and I'm willing to prepare a patch when I figure out
>> how this should be done. However, it seems worth asking if anyone has
>> needed to do this before. I've already done some searching, but the
>> results seem to pick up quite different posts than I need.
>> 
>> Cheers, JN
>> 
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-package-devel at r-project.org <javascript:;> mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://hadley.nz
> 
> 	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel