[R-pkg-devel] Etiquette for package submissions that do not automatically pass checks?

Voeten, C.C. c@c@voeten @end|ng |rom hum@|e|denun|v@n|
Tue Aug 18 18:39:58 CEST 2020

Dear Ivan,

> Apologies for derailing the thread, but I had a similar problem a few
> months ago [*], found what looks like a different solution but did not
> have time to investigate it further.
> Given that serialize() does not send package namespaces over the wire
> [**], why would it be a bad idea to pass actual functions (instead of
> character strings naming functions) to parallel::parLapply and friends?
> This seems to avoid the need to export the worker functions or use :::
> in calls to parallel functions from package functions. Unless I am
> missing something, which I probably am.

No worries, these issues are also what this mailing list is for! I've meanwhile heard back from Uwe that I should resubmit after the 24th, and that he still would like the warning to go away. Your suggestion certainly makes sense, but it would require a rewrite of some delicate parts. Fortunately, I was already passing a parameter list around anyway, so I can just add those functions in that list, and I'll probably end up indeed taking that approach. Thank you for the suggestion! It does feel like an awful hack, though, given that the language supports doing this in a clean way using the ::: operator. But I also understand that CRAN want to impose certain limitations to discourage bad practices, and I trust their judgment that ::: is one of those.


More information about the R-package-devel mailing list