On 17/11/2017 2:30 AM, Jeff Newmiller wrote:
Obvious? How about "obscurity"? Just directly use pkg::fun if you have name
collision.
One disadvantage of this is that the availability of pkg may not be
checked until you use it. Package checks will complain if you haven't
declared in the
As Jeff recommends, I use the pkg::fun for clarity.
However I probably use it more than needed (e.g. I use the dplyr:: prefix
on all dplyr function calls instead of just the functions with name
collisions).
Are there any tools that can be used (like a form of lint) to identify uses
of functions
Obvious? How about "obscurity"? Just directly use pkg::fun if you have name
collision.
--
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.
On November 16, 2017 4:46:15 PM PST, Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
>On 16/11/2017 4:53 PM, Boris Steipe wrote:
>> Large packages
On 16/11/2017 4:53 PM, Boris Steipe wrote:
Large packages sometimes mask each other's functions and that creates a
headache, especially for teaching code, since function signatures may depend on
which order packages were loaded in. One of my students proposed using the idiom
<- ::
... in
Large packages sometimes mask each other's functions and that creates a
headache, especially for teaching code, since function signatures may depend on
which order packages were loaded in. One of my students proposed using the idiom
<- ::
... in a preamble, when we use just a small subset
5 matches
Mail list logo