On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:14:08 +0100, Kurt Hornik
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>> Peter Dalgaard writes:
>
> > Kurt Hornik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >>>>> A J Rossini writes:
> >>
> >> > But I don't see a problem with "package("package")", though I'm sure
> >> > I'm missing something.
> >>
> >> package() [sic] might be the creator for package objects, provided we
> >> can decide on what they are (and what kind of packages [source,
> >> installed, ...] they are used for).
> >>
> >> usePackage() or use_package() otoh would indicate to "use" a package
> >> (i.e., load and attach it). The tricky part is deciding about the
> >> interface (e.g., finally disallowing non-standard evaluation as it is a
> >> programmer's nightmare) and what it should return. And that is work in
> >> progress ...
>
> > Any information on the rate...? (I still vote for usepackage() btw.)
>
> Why not use(), as the GCD?
Excellent suggestion, Kurt.
> > It would be good if we could at least have an outline of the intended
> > functionality and see if we could forge ahead and get a preliminary
> > version done in time for 2.1.x
>
> Help us out.
>
> use <- function(package, pos = 2, lib.loc, ...)
use <- function(packageName,pos=2,library, ...)
I could argue that "library" and "lib.loc" try to describe the same
thing (a name and its pointer).
> where 'package' is either a character string or some sort of package
> object/reference, to be specified later. And 'lib.loc' needs to have a
> different name if we rename libraries into stores or whatever ...
I think package ought to be a character string. Unless you want to
combine the packageName and libraryLocation into some form of data
object, or packageName, libraryLocation, and an environment containing
the erstwhile contents?
> What should this return? Currently, 'library' returns the list of
> loaded (or available) packages by default, as a list of names, which is
> not good enough. So we need something like the DLLInfoList returned by
> getLoadedDLLs() (and the docs should actually mention that class), or
> something usable by the package management tools ... and this is under
> redesign as well.
Perhaps "use" should incorporate "require" functionality, i.e. TRUE or
FALSE depending on whether you can use it after the "use" function
call.
>
> But why should this really return info on all loaded/attached packages?
> An alternative might be just returning the package meta-data in some
> form. Or nothing, which would fit into the idea that it really does
> nothing apart from loading and attaching a package.
I like "libraryContents()" or similar to figure out loaded and
potentially loadable packages.
> (And maybe a condition object inheriting from packageLoadAndAttachError
> in case of failure? :-))
Yes. whatever.
--
best,
-tony
"Commit early,commit often, and commit in a repository from which we can easily
roll-back your mistakes" (AJR, 4Jan05).
A.J. Rossini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________________________________________
R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
