Re: [Rd] Lightweight 'package' idea.

2010-01-20 Thread Keith Jewell
Following up on my own post of 13th, Someone pointed out that I was MS Windows dependent. I've tried to correct that, but I'm in a Windows only environment so I can't check. I've also tried to make a few other improvements. The result is below. No guarantees or warranties of any kind, but

Re: [Rd] Lightweight 'package' idea.

2010-01-20 Thread hadley wickham
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Barry Rowlingson b.rowling...@lancaster.ac.uk wrote: I'm often wanting to develop functions whilst manipulating data. But I don't want to end up with a .RData full of functions and data. It might be that I have functions that are re-usable but not worth

Re: [Rd] Lightweight 'package' idea.

2010-01-13 Thread Keith Jewell
Going back a few months I also thought it would be nice if R had built into it some way of running code in source packages possibly with degraded functionality to ease development so building on Barry Rowlingsons start I came up with this: --- loadDir - function(.Root

[Rd] Lightweight 'package' idea.

2009-08-21 Thread Barry Rowlingson
I'm often wanting to develop functions whilst manipulating data. But I don't want to end up with a .RData full of functions and data. It might be that I have functions that are re-usable but not worth sticking in a package. So I've tried to come up with a paradigm for function development that

Re: [Rd] Lightweight 'package' idea.

2009-08-21 Thread Gabor Grothendieck
That's nifty. Perhaps it could look into /foo/bar/baz/lib1/*/R in which case one could simply place source packages in /foo/bar/baz/lib1 In fact it would be nice if R had built into it some way of running code in source packages possibly with degraded functionality to ease development, i.e.