As load involves a side-effect, I would think that loadRDS is a bad idea. That said, read/write is far more consistent across all languages and internally with R than read/save is.
My (worthless) vote is for writeRDS. Jeff On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Hadley Wickham <had...@rice.edu> wrote: >>> Is there any chance that readRDS and saveRDS might one day become >>> read.rds and write.rds? That would make them more consistent with the >>> other reading and writing functions. >> >> Ending names in .foo is a bad idea because of the S3 naming conventions, so >> I think this is unlikely. But you can always create an alias yourself... > > It just makes teaching that much harder. We have the pairs: > > * read.csv and write.csv > * load and save > * readRDS and saveRDS > > Even loadRDS/saveRDS or readRDS/writeRDS would be better than the current > combo. > > Hadley > > -- > Assistant Professor / Dobelman Family Junior Chair > Department of Statistics / Rice University > http://had.co.nz/ > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > -- Jeffrey Ryan jeffrey.r...@lemnica.com www.lemnica.com www.esotericR.com ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel