On Mar 18, 2011, at 9:56 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > > - marcus was suggesting me to create a package with the same contents > as the one of loaded by MC. > and to have tags to only represent categories. > > Now my time is short so I will > - probably not implement tags
Even then, I would vote for mapping one PackageInfo --> one Rpackage. Categories are not packages, if we make every category a package we will end up in a big mess (as groups of these would have lots and lots of dependencies). Already the PackageInfo Packages for Network and Collection (the split into just the class categories - as- packages) was a mistake, purely driven by speed of MC. > - check again the implementation of RPackage and in particular the > necessary compatibility layer, because I saw some strange > code. > - check the MC dependency on method category conventions, because some > logic is not defined in the right place > like overrides in the MC tools and not in the PackageInfo > - check how a package gets created when loaded: the key question is > that there is a problem to rely on categories to > associate classes to packages because we can end up with overlapping > (normally the IDE captures the category renames > and change the packages accordingly). > - we should not rely on most-specific-category kind of pattern matching. > > So if you have suggestion please talk now. > > > Stef -- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
