Bill Dunlap Spotfire, TIBCO Software wdunlap tibco.com
> -----Original Message----- > From: r-devel-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On > Behalf > Of Matthew Dowle > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:41 AM > To: r-de...@stat.math.ethz.ch > Subject: Re: [Rd] CRAN policies > > William Dunlap <wdunlap <at> tibco.com> writes: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > The survival package has a similar special case: the routines for > > > expected population survival are set up to accept multiple types of date > > > format so have lines like > > > if (class(x) == 'chron') { y <- as.numeric(x - chron("01/01/1960")} > > > This leaves me with two extraneous "no visible binding" messages. > > > > Suppose we defined a function like > > NO_VISIBLE_BINDING(expr) expr > > and added an entry to the stuff in codetools so that it > > would not check for misspelled object names in call to > > NO_VISIBLE_BINDING. Then Terry could write that line as > > if (class(x) == "chron") { y <- as.numeric(x - > > NO_VISIBLE_BINDING(chron) > ("01/01/1960")} > > and the Notes would disappear. > > > > That's ok for package code, but what about test suites? Say there was a test > on the result of "with(DF,a+b)", you wouldn't want to change the test to "with > (DF,NO_VISIBLE_BINDING(a)+NO_VISIBLE_BINDING(b))" not just because that's long > and onerous, but because that's *changing* the test i.e. introducing a > difference between what's tested and what user code will do. I don't know if test suites need to be checked for no visible bindings - if there is a real problem the test ought to fail. codetools should be able to do special checks for known functions that do not following the standard evaluation rules . E.g., do not check any arguments of `~`, do not check the 'expr' argument of with, do not check the subset or weights arguments of lm. If a package writer introduces a new function with nonstandard evaluation, perhaps the package could include some information about the matter in a file that codetools could could source before running its checks. Bill Dunlap Spotfire, TIBCO Software wdunlap tibco.com > > As others suggested, how about a new category: MEMO. The "no visible binding" > NOTE would be downgraded to MEMO. CRAN maintainers could then ignore MEMOs > more > easily. > > What I really like about NOTES is that when new checks are added to R then as > a > package maintainer you know you don't have to fix them straight away. If a new > WARNING shows up on r-devel daily checks, however, then you've got some > warning > about the WARNING that you need to fix more urgently and may even accelerate a > release. So it's not just about checks when submitting a package, but what > happens afterwards as R itself (and packages in Depends) move on. In other > words, you know you need to fix new NOTES but not as urgently as new WARNINGS. > > Matthew > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
