Barry,
Interesting idea. The proj4string discussion is good, but somewhat trivial;
a major R release merits more than that. Are there bigger things to be
done? How about a redesign of sp to accommodate objects that have data on
disk (in a database, wherever) both for raster and points/lines/polys. I.e.
that is a design where  having all values in a data.frame memory is a
special case (but packages may require that to be possible); and such a
change need not break any, or not much, code in other packages. Add perhaps
a few other things, such as matching holes to polygon-parts; rename the
proj4string slot to something appropriate; change the bbox from a matrix to
an Extent (or similar) object.

Perhaps too much work for little gain? Focus on new things? I thought that
attempt to clean topologies you were working on a while ago would be great
to wrap up and package.
Robert


On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Edzer Pebesma <
edzer.pebesma@uni-muenster.de> wrote:

> Hi Barry, that sounds like a great project. As of your (only) example, I
> already see, after loading package raster:
>
> > showMethods(proj4string)
> Function: proj4string (package sp)
> obj="Raster"
> obj="Spatial"
>
> Loading Tcl/Tk interface ... done
> > getMethod(proj4string, "Raster")
> Method Definition:
>
> function (obj)
> {
>     projection(obj)
> }
> <environment: namespace:raster>
>
> Signatures:
>         obj
> target  "Raster"
> defined "Raster"
>
> or do you suggest that sp should adopt the use of projection() as well?
>
> I'm looking forward to many reactions too, but will draw my conclusions
> if there aren't any.
>
> On 12/16/2012 04:13 PM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
> > There's been an announcement that the next version of R will be called
> > 3.0.0. Although not a massive change (compared to Python 2.x and 3.x,
> > or Perl 4 to Perl 5), it might be a good opportunity to revise all the
> > spatial classes in order to:
> >
> >  * clear out any cruft
> >  * remove any inconsistencies
> >  * add some new functionality
> >  * unify across spatial packages
> >
> > The first thing that springs to mind, for example, is getting sp and
> > raster to use the same functions for coordinate reference system
> > processing. Doubtless there are other opprtunities for synergy...
> >
> >  Yes, this may well break existing code, but if R is going to jump
> > from 2 to 3 then that will break existing code too.
> >
> >  Your ponderances, please...
> >
> > Barry
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > R-sig-Geo mailing list
> > R-sig-Geo@r-project.org
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-geo
> >
>
> --
> Edzer Pebesma
> Institute for Geoinformatics (ifgi), University of Münster
> Weseler Straße 253, 48151 Münster, Germany. Phone: +49 251
> 8333081, Fax: +49 251 8339763  http://ifgi.uni-muenster.de
> http://www.52north.org/geostatistics      e.pebesma@wwu.de
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-sig-Geo mailing list
> R-sig-Geo@r-project.org
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-geo
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

