Ugh, but not *as* ambiguous as the proposed example (you can still split unambiguously on "_"; yes, you could split on "last _" in Gabriel's example, but ...)
On 2019-08-09 4:17 p.m., Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On 09/08/2019 2:41 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote: >> Note that this proposal would make mypackage_2.3.1 a valid *package >> name*, >> whose corresponding tarball name might be mypackage_2.3.1_2.3.2 after a >> patch. Yes its a silly example, but why allow that kind of ambiguity? >> > CRAN already has a package named "FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2", whose tarball is > FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2_3.2.tar.gz, so I think we've already lost that game. > > Duncan Murdoch > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel