>>>>> "Seth" == Seth Falcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> on Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:31:22 -0700 writes:
Seth> Sean Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On 6/6/06 8:33 AM, "Uwe Ligges"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> See ?assignInNamespace and ?fixInNamespace
>> Thanks, Uwe. I should have been able to find those,
>> but....
>>
>>> During developing, I suggest to remove the NAMESPACE
>>> temporarily.
>> I wondered if that was common practice.
Seth> For simple packages, removing the NAMESPACE file will
Seth> work well and is certainly very convenient. However,
Seth> with more complex packages (in terms of dependencies
Seth> and S4 stuff) it may not work so well:
Seth> * You won't be testing the _real_ package (this is a
Seth> problem regardless of complexity I suppose).
Seth> * Without the NAMESPACE, you may get the wrong
Seth> functions and see all sorts of breakage. IOW, some
Seth> packages rely on the NAMESPACE to function properly;
Seth> removing it does more than just exposing private
Seth> functions.
Seth> In practice I tend not to follow my advice :-/. What
Seth> I often do is the equivalent of source() on the
Seth> required .R files while I'm fixing a particular
Seth> function or method. But I do make sure to go through
Seth> an INSTALL/test cycle (with NAMESPACE) frequently.
I'm quite similar to Seth here. For that reason (and because
Doug Bates also behaves similarly here, and we talked about it !),
if you use R 2.3.0 or newer,
example(source)
will provide the function sourceDir(), so you can do
example(source)
sourceDir("<mypackage_SOURCE_dir>/R")
Martin
Seth> Cheers,
Seth> + seth
Seth> ______________________________________________
Seth> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
Seth> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
