I don't seem to have the original post (not in spamfilter either). But generically, I think namespacing specials in formulas is just a Bad Idea. They are syntactic constructs, specifically _not_ function calls, so people are stumbling over formally protecting them from a non-existing scoping issue, then having to undo that for the actual use.
It all came about by someone (I have forgotten the details) having a corporate coding standard mandating namespaces on all function calls and falling over things like strata() in the survival package. Then package author(s) chose to comply rather than explain... -pd > On 14 Apr 2025, at 23.49, Ben Bolker <bbol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't have any concerns about these changes, don't see any need to > preserve the old behaviour. > > In lme4 and glmmTMB (and now broken out into a separate `reformulas` > package, I do this the hard way, walking down the parse trees of formula > objects and looking for specials, and not using the functionality here. > > Mikael showed how I could use the *new* functionality instead: > > https://github.com/bbolker/reformulas/issues/4 > > but honestly if I were going to change things in `reformulas` it would be in > the direction of streamlining and refactoring, not changing the basic > approach. > > cheers > Ben Bolker > > > On 2025-04-14 5:43 p.m., Mikael Jagan wrote: >> [CC: maintainers of R packages survival, mgcv, lme4, RItools] >> Dear R-devel subscribers, >> If you have never used stats:::terms.formula or its 'specials' argument, >> then feel free to stop reading or otherwise review help("terms.formula") >> and help("terms.object"). >> Folks may have noticed a recent change in R-devel: >> $ svn log -v -r 88066 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> r88066 | maechler | 2025-03-28 17:04:27 -0400 (Fri, 28 Mar 2025) | 1 line >> Changed paths: >> M /trunk/doc/NEWS.Rd >> M /trunk/src/library/stats/src/model.c >> M /trunk/tests/reg-tests-1e.R >> terms(<formula>, specials = "<non-syntactic>") now works >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> intended to resolve Bug 18568 >> https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18568 >> which pointed out the following undesirable behaviour in R-release: >> > attr(terms(~x1 + s (x2, f) + s (x3, g), specials = "s"), "specials") >> $s >> [1] 2 3 >> > attr(terms(~x1 + `|`(x2, f) + `|`(x3, g), specials = "|"), "specials") >> $`|` >> NULL >> namely that non-syntactic names like "|" were not supported. Unfortunately, >> the patch (r88066) broke one package on CRAN, RItools, which relied on the >> following >> > attr(terms(~x1 + mgcv::s (x2, f), specials = "mgcv::s"), "specials") >> $`mgcv::s` >> [1] 2 >> > attr(terms(~x1 + `mgcv::s`(x2, f), specials = "mgcv::s"), "specials") >> $`mgcv::s` >> NULL >> whereas in R-devel we see >> > attr(terms(~x1 + mgcv::s (x2, f), specials = "mgcv::s"), "specials") >> $`mgcv::s` >> NULL >> > attr(terms(~x1 + `mgcv::s`(x2, f), specials = "mgcv::s"), "specials") >> $`mgcv::s` >> [1] 2 >> A strict interpretation of 'specials' as a list of *name*s of functions would >> suggest that the old behaviour was "wrong" (and accidental, predating package >> namespaces altogether) and that the new behaviour is "right". After all, >> `mgcv::s` (with backticks) is a name (of type "symbol", class "name") whereas >> mgcv::s (without backticks) is a call (of type "language", class "call"). >> Martin and I are requesting comments from the community, especially R-core >> members and package authors who use 'specials', on the following: >> 1. Should the previous (long standing but undocumented, likely rarely >> used) >> behaviour be preserved going forward? >> 2. If we pursue a more *robust* implementation of namespace resolution by >> stats:::terms.formula, not relying on details of how non- syntactic >> names >> are deparsed, then what should that look like? >> (I say "likely rarely used" because stats:::terms.formula is called >> primarily by >> package *authors* to parse formulas of package *users*. Only a subset of >> those >> packages will set 'specials', only a subset of *those* packages will set >> specials="<pkg>::<name>", and only one such package is known to be broken >> due >> to r88066.) >> Relevant to (2) is an earlier thread >> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2025-March/083906.html >> in which I proposed that we make use of an optional 'package' attribute of >> 'specials', so that >> specials = structure(c("s", "s"), package = c("", "mgcv")) >> would match calls s(...) and mgcv::s(...) separately. This attribute would >> be >> preserved by the 'specials' component of the 'terms' object, e.g., >> > attr(terms(~x1 + s(x2, f) + mgcv::s(x3, g), >> + specials = structure(c("s", "s"), package = c("", "mgcv"))), >> + "specials") >> $s >> [1] 2 >> $s >> [1] 3 >> attr(,"package") >> [1] "" "mgcv" >> A patch against R-devel (at r88141) implementing this proposal is attached. >> Mikael > > -- > Dr. Benjamin Bolker > Professor, Mathematics & Statistics and Biology, McMaster University > Director, School of Computational Science and Engineering > > E-mail is sent at my convenience; I don't expect replies outside of working > > hours. > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel -- Peter Dalgaard, Professor, Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business SchoolSolbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark Phone: (+45)38153501 Office: A 4.23 Email: pd....@cbs.dk Priv: pda...@gmail.com ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
