On 3/22/10 3:57 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
"SF" == Seth Falcon<s...@userprimary.net>
on Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:47:17 -0700 writes:
SF> On 3/17/10 9:11 AM, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
>> Currently library() and attach() fail to locate an
>> existing '.conflicts.OK' in a package wit name space,
>> unless it is exported. Since there should be little
>> interest in exporting '.conflicts.OK' otherwise, one may
>> argue that those methods should look for '.conflicts.OK'
>> even if it is not exported.
SF> I guess I agree that there is no real value in forcing
SF> .conflicts.OK to be exported.
so do I.
So I guess we agree that Henrik's patch would be worth applying.
@Henrik: if you resend your patch with the additions for attach, I will
see about putting it in.
SF> OTOH, this seems like a dubious feature to begin. When
SF> is it a good idea to use it?
in cases, the package author thinks (s)he knows what (s)he is
doing;
e.g. in the case of Matrix, I could argue that I know about the
current conflicts, and I would *not* want the users of my
package be intimidated by warnings about maskings...
I can't say that this convinces me that .conflicts.OK is OK. Are there
package authors who realize they do not know what they are doing enough
to keep the warning messages :-P
+ seth
--
Seth Falcon | @sfalcon | http://userprimary.net/
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
