On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:33 PM, peter dalgaard <pda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 6, 2012, at 22:23 , Hervé Pagès wrote:
>
>> On 04/06/2012 12:33 PM, Brad McNeney wrote:
>>> OK, thanks for the tip on good coding practice. I'm still getting the NOTE
>>> though when I make the suggested change.
>>
>> Because when you do return(RutgersMapB36[,1]), the code checker has no
>> way to know that the RutgersMapB36 variable is actually defined.
>>
>> Try this:
>>
>> test<-function() {
>> RutgersMapB36 <- NULL
>> data(RutgersMapB36)
>> return(RutgersMapB36[,1])
>> }
>>
>
> That might remove the NOTE, but as far as I can see, it also breaks the
> code...
For data() per se, which by default clutter up the global environment,
you can do:
test<-function() {
env <- new.env()
data("RutgersMapB36", envir=env)
env$RutgersMapB36[,1]
}
That is more explicit, and I do believe you won't get a NOTE about it.
Other than that, one can also use the following style (which still
seems to do the trick) for data(), attach(), load() et al., iff have
to use them:
test<-function() {
# To avoid NOTEs by R CMD check
RutgersMapB36 <- NULL; rm(RutgersMapB36);
data(RutgersMapB36)
return(RutgersMapB36[,1])
}
/Henrik
>
> --
> Peter Dalgaard, Professor,
> Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School
> Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
> Phone: (+45)38153501
> Email: pd....@cbs.dk Priv: pda...@gmail.com
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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
