Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide (has become S3 vs S4, in part)

> Martin Morgan > on Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:07:05 -0700 writes: > spencerg wrote: >> Bryan Hanson wrote: >>> Looks like the discussion is no longer about R Style, but S3 vs S4? > yes nice topic rename! >>> >>> To that end, I asked more or less the same question

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide (has become S3 vs S4, in part)

spencerg wrote: > Bryan Hanson wrote: >> Looks like the discussion is no longer about R Style, but S3 vs S4? yes nice topic rename! >> >> To that end, I asked more or less the same question a few weeks ago, >> arising >> from the much the same motivations. The discussion was helpful, >> here's t

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On 9/1/2009 8:58 AM, Martin Morgan wrote: >> >> Corrado wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Duncan, Spencer, >>> >>> To clarify, the situation is: >>> >>> 1) I have no reasons to choose S3 on S4 or vice versa, or any other >>> coding convention >>> 2) Our g

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:47:36 +0200, Corrado wrote: Thanks Duncan, Spencer, To clarify, the situation is: 1) I have no reasons to choose S3 on S4 or vice versa, or any other coding convention 2) Our group has not done any OO developing in R and I would be the first, so I can set up the s

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide (has become S3 vs S4, in part)

Bryan Hanson wrote: Looks like the discussion is no longer about R Style, but S3 vs S4? To that end, I asked more or less the same question a few weeks ago, arising from the much the same motivations. The discussion was helpful, here's the link: http://www.nabble.com/Need-Advice%3A-Consider

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide (has become S3 vs S4, in part)

Looks like the discussion is no longer about R Style, but S3 vs S4? To that end, I asked more or less the same question a few weeks ago, arising from the much the same motivations. The discussion was helpful, here's the link: http://www.nabble.com/Need-Advice%3A-Considering-Converting-a-Packag

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Martin Morgan wrote: > It seems relevant to compare S3 and S4 code for doing S3-style > programming, leaving more 'advanced' S4 for another day. In S3 I might > define a simple class and method as > > > makeS3Foo <- >    function(x=numeric(), y=numeric()) > { >    if

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On 9/1/2009 8:58 AM, Martin Morgan wrote: Corrado wrote: Thanks Duncan, Spencer, To clarify, the situation is: 1) I have no reasons to choose S3 on S4 or vice versa, or any other coding convention 2) Our group has not done any OO developing in R and I would be the first, so I can set up the

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

Corrado wrote: > Thanks Duncan, Spencer, > > To clarify, the situation is: > > 1) I have no reasons to choose S3 on S4 or vice versa, or any other coding > convention > 2) Our group has not done any OO developing in R and I would be the first, so > I > can set up the standards > 3) I am starti

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

Corrado wrote: Thanks Duncan, Spencer, To clarify, the situation is: 1) I have no reasons to choose S3 on S4 or vice versa, or any other coding convention 2) Our group has not done any OO developing in R and I would be the first, so I can set up the standards 3) I am starting from scratch wit

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

Thanks Duncan, Spencer, To clarify, the situation is: 1) I have no reasons to choose S3 on S4 or vice versa, or any other coding convention 2) Our group has not done any OO developing in R and I would be the first, so I can set up the standards 3) I am starting from scratch with a new package,

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

Vitalie S. wrote: On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:40:53 +0200, Kevin Wright wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Ted Harding wrote: On 28-Aug-09 12:59:24, Esmail wrote: > Perhaps most of you have already seen this? > > http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/google-r-style.html > > Comme

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:40:53 +0200, Kevin Wright wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Ted Harding wrote: On 28-Aug-09 12:59:24, Esmail wrote: > Perhaps most of you have already seen this? > > http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/google-r-style.html > > Comments/Critiques? > >

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

Considering these new insights from Romain and Duncan, a good project might be to revisit package.skeleton, using the parser package. This reminds me of a recent proposal of parsing Rd files to convert them into roxygen tags in the source code. Thanks for the input, baptiste 2009/8/31 Duncan

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

baptiste auguie wrote: 2009/8/31 David Scott I think this discussion is valuable, and have previously asked about style which I think is very important. Base R does suffer from very inconsistent naming and as I think Duncan said it makes it very difficult sometimes to remember names when yo

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

Hi, Maybe the parser package can help you building such a code beautifier: > require( parser ) > data <- attr( parser( "/tmp/code.R" ), "data" ) > head( subset( data, terminal ), 5 ) line1 col1 byte1 line2 col2 byte2 token id parent token.desc terminaltext 1 10 0

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

2009/8/31 David Scott > > > I think this discussion is valuable, and have previously asked about style > which I think is very important. Base R does suffer from very inconsistent > naming and as I think Duncan said it makes it very difficult sometimes to > remember names when you have variations

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

(Ted Harding) wrote: On 29-Aug-09 17:51:54, diegol wrote: Max Kuhn wrote: Perhaps this is obvious, but Ive never understood why this is the general convention: An opening curly brace should never go on its own line; I tend to do this: f <- function() { if (TRUE) { cat("TRUE!!\n"

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

hadley wickham wrote: Perhaps most of you have already seen this? http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/google-r-style.html Comments/Critiques? I made my own version that reflects my personal biases: http://had.co.nz/stat405/resources/r-style-guide.html thanks for sharing, I'l

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On 29/08/2009 6:05 PM, John Sorkin wrote: For my money, and perspective as one who has written a compiler, this reflects a failing of the R parser. Both if (TRUE) { cat("TRUE!!\n") } else { cat("FALSE!!\n") } and if (TRUE) { cat("TRUE!!\n") } else { cat("FALSE!!\n

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

But in interactive use the R parser is constrained to work a line at a time (unless it could predict what you were going to type next ;) Hadley On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 5:05 PM, John Sorkin wrote: > For my money, and perspective as one who has written a compiler, this > reflects a failing of the

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

For my money, and perspective as one who has written a compiler, this reflects a failing of the R parser. Both if (TRUE) { cat("TRUE!!\n") } else { cat("FALSE!!\n") } and if (TRUE) { cat("TRUE!!\n") } else { cat("FALSE!!\n") } are easy to read, and should be accep

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On 29/08/2009 12:03 PM, Corrado wrote: I do not understand why one should use a S3 preferentially on a S4 class, if S4 is more rigorous. As Spencer said, most people use either one or the other. I think it's generally a bad idea to mix them (there are strange semantics if you do that), so us

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On 29-Aug-09 17:51:54, diegol wrote: > Max Kuhn wrote: >> Perhaps this is obvious, but Ive never understood why this is the >> general convention: >> >>> An opening curly brace should never go on its own line; >> >> I tend to do this: >> >> f <- function() >> { >> if (TRUE) >> { >> c

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

Max Kuhn wrote: > > Perhaps this is obvious, but Ive never understood why this is the > general convention: > >> An opening curly brace should never go on its own line; > > I tend to do this: > > f <- function() > { > if (TRUE) > { > cat("TRUE!!\n") > } else { > cat("FAL

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

S3 is very easy to change; S4 is very difficult. This provides advantages and disadvantages for both. Some people swear by one and curse the other -- from both sides. S4 is newer, and I have had problems in the past finding out what S4 methods are available and finding acceptabl

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

Max Kuhn wrote: Perhaps this is obvious, but Ive never understood why this is the general convention: An opening curly brace should never go on its own line; I tend to do this: f <- function() { if (TRUE) { cat("TRUE!!\n") } else { cat("FALSE!!\n") } } (I don't usu

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

I do not understand why one should use a S3 preferentially on a S4 class, if S4 is more rigorous. (The premiss is I am a newbie with OO programming in R, and would like to understand what is the "proper" way to OO program in R ) Regards On Saturday 29 August 2009 16:23:39 hadley wickham

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

Max Kuhn wrote: Perhaps this is obvious, but Ive never understood why this is the general convention: An opening curly brace should never go on its own line; I tend to do this: f <- function() { if (TRUE) { cat("TRUE!!\n") } else { cat("FALSE!!\n") } } (I don't u

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

>> An opening curly brace should never go on its own line; > > I tend to do this: > > f <- function() > { >  if (TRUE) >    { >      cat("TRUE!!\n") >    } else { >      cat("FALSE!!\n") >    } > } > > (I don't usually put one-liners in if/else blocks; here I would have > used ifelse) > > I haven't

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

Perhaps this is obvious, but Ive never understood why this is the general convention: > An opening curly brace should never go on its own line; I tend to do this: f <- function() { if (TRUE) { cat("TRUE!!\n") } else { cat("FALSE!!\n") } } (I don't usually put one-liner

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

Barry Rowlingson wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:11 PM, hadley wickham wrote: In my view, that's the purpose of indenting - you see scope from indenting. *cough* python *cough* :-) (my favorite language at the moment) __ R-help@r-project.org m

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

Kingsford Jones wrote: A few thoughts: <...> -- It's nice that people have made these guides available Agreed .. it helps those relatively new to the language (and possible other language biases) get their orientation. Cheers, Esmail __ R-hel

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

(Ted Harding) wrote: On 28-Aug-09 12:59:24, Esmail wrote: Perhaps most of you have already seen this? http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/google-r-style.html Comments/Critiques? I think it is grossly over-prescriptive. For example: "function names have initial capital let

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

Duncan Murdoch wrote: On 8/28/2009 8:59 AM, Esmail wrote: Perhaps most of you have already seen this? http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/google-r-style.html Comments/Critiques? The rules are mostly reasonable, though they aren't the ones followed in the R source. One bad

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

A few thoughts: -- As for naming preferences, in an interactive R session or answering an R-help question I'm glad I can type lm(log(y) ~ atan(x)) rather than FitLinearModel(CalculateNaturalLogarithm(y) ~ CalculateInverseTangent(x)) -- For consistency, their function makeColName(...) should be

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On 8/28/2009 1:02 PM, Kevin Wright wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch > wrote: On 8/28/2009 12:33 PM, Kevin Wright wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Henrik Bengtsson mailto:h...@stat.berkeley.edu>>wrote: Q

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Kevin Wright wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > >> On 8/28/2009 12:33 PM, Kevin Wright wrote: [...] >> Now that doesn't sound like the browser.  Whatever debugger you are using >> has a bug. >> >> Duncan Murdoch >> >> > Ah, right y

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:11 PM, hadley wickham wrote: > In my view, that's the purpose of indenting - you see scope from > indenting. *cough* python *cough* Barry __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEA

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Henrik Bengtsson wrote: > Quite a while ago I put up "R Coding Conventions (RCC) - a draft", now at: > >  http://docs.google.com/View?id=dddzqd53_2646dcw759cb Google Docs seems to have a hiccup when it comes to publishing/sharing docs; here is a PDF until they've f

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On 8/28/2009 12:33 PM, Kevin Wright wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Henrik Bengtsson > >wrote: >> >> Quite a while ago I put up "R Coding Conventions (RCC) - a draft", now >>> at: >>> >>> http://docs.google.com/View?id=dddzq

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On 8/28/2009 12:33 PM, Kevin Wright wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Henrik Bengtsson wrote: Quite a while ago I put up "R Coding Conventions (RCC) - a draft", now at: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dddzqd53_2646dcw759cb It's useful for beginners and those coding "randomly". Like i

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

But if the closing curly brace marks the end of the if part of an if else statement, the else keyword has to be on the same line as the closing brace. The code will not work if the else is on the next line AFAIK. On Aug 28, 2009, at 6:11 PM, hadley wickham wrote: An opening curly brace should

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Henrik Bengtsson wrote: > Quite a while ago I put up "R Coding Conventions (RCC) - a draft", now at: > > http://docs.google.com/View?id=dddzqd53_2646dcw759cb > > It's useful for beginners and those coding "randomly". Like it or not. > > It's ok to try to persua

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

> An opening curly brace should never go on its own line and should always be > followed by a new line; a closing curly brace should always go on its own > line. > > It seems to me that the opening an dosing curly brace should go on their own > lines to allow the reader to immediately know what

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

> It's ok to try to persuade people coding randomly, but otherwise it is > waste of time to get into arguing over if-else or bracketing - we all > have our own favorite. I totally agree. The main purpose of my style guide is so that my students write code that I can easily read, understand and gr

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

Quite a while ago I put up "R Coding Conventions (RCC) - a draft", now at: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dddzqd53_2646dcw759cb It's useful for beginners and those coding "randomly". Like it or not. It's ok to try to persuade people coding randomly, but otherwise it is waste of time to get in

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

> In the spirit of "less is more", I find the underscores to be distracting > and unneeded typing.  Just simplify to camel caps. This is just personal style. If you right your own style guide you can change it ;) Hadley -- http://had.co.nz/ __ R-hel

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM, hadley wickham wrote: > > Perhaps most of you have already seen this? > > > > http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/google-r-style.html > > > > Comments/Critiques? > > I made my own version that reflects my personal biases: > http://had.co.nz/stat405/

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

>> I made my own version that reflects my personal biases: >> http://had.co.nz/stat405/resources/r-style-guide.html > > I see you repeated (or independently invented?) the bad rule about closing > braces.  They should usually go on their own line, but not when followed by > an else clause. That wa

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

I am troubled by the curly brace "rule": An opening curly brace should never go on its own line and should always be followed by a new line; a closing curly brace should always go on its own line. It seems to me that the opening an dosing curly brace should go on their own lines to allow the re

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On 8/28/2009 10:41 AM, hadley wickham wrote: >>> >>> Perhaps most of you have already seen this? >>> >>>  http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/google-r-style.html >>> >>> Comments/Critiques? >> >> I made my own version that refle

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On 8/28/2009 10:41 AM, hadley wickham wrote: Perhaps most of you have already seen this? http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/google-r-style.html Comments/Critiques? I made my own version that reflects my personal biases: http://had.co.nz/stat405/resources/r-style-guide.html I

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

> Perhaps most of you have already seen this? > >  http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/google-r-style.html > > Comments/Critiques? I made my own version that reflects my personal biases: http://had.co.nz/stat405/resources/r-style-guide.html Hadley -- http://had.co.nz/ ___

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Ted Harding wrote: > On 28-Aug-09 12:59:24, Esmail wrote: > > Perhaps most of you have already seen this? > > > > http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/google-r-style.html > > > > Comments/Critiques? > > > > Thanks, > > Esmail > > > > ps: Reminds me of

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

Esmail, Very nice; thanks! Tom - Original Message - From: Esmail Date: Friday, August 28, 2009 8:59 am Subject: [R] Google's R Style Guide > Perhaps most of you have already seen this? > > http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/google-r- > style.html >

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On 8/28/2009 9:22 AM, (Ted Harding) wrote: On 28-Aug-09 12:59:24, Esmail wrote: Perhaps most of you have already seen this? http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/google-r-style.html Comments/Critiques? Thanks, Esmail ps: Reminds me of PEP 8 for Python http://www.python.o

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On 28-Aug-09 12:59:24, Esmail wrote: > Perhaps most of you have already seen this? > > http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/google-r-style.html > > Comments/Critiques? > > Thanks, > Esmail > > ps: Reminds me of PEP 8 for Python > > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/ >

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

On 8/28/2009 8:59 AM, Esmail wrote: Perhaps most of you have already seen this? http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/google-r-style.html Comments/Critiques? The rules are mostly reasonable, though they aren't the ones followed in the R source. One bad rule is the one on curl

Re: [R] Google's R Style Guide

Esmail wrote: > Perhaps most of you have already seen this? > > http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/google-r-style.html > > Comments/Critiques? The recommendation of variable.name over variable_name or variableName is contentious (to say the least) because of the clash with S3 me

[R] Google's R Style Guide

Perhaps most of you have already seen this? http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/google-r-style.html Comments/Critiques? Thanks, Esmail ps: Reminds me of PEP 8 for Python http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/ Maybe not that surprising since Python is also one of the