I had sent the following to r-devel a while ago, but perhaps r-help is more appropriate. I guess my question is what to do with this, would people generally file an issue, or is there a way to hear if this is something that makes sense to add – whether more info would be helpful and so on?
===== I was very happy to see the new mask.ok option. It works very well when conflicts.policy is "strict": --- options(conflicts.policy="strict") library(igraph, exclude="decompose", mask.ok=c("spectrum","union")) #> [No messages] --- However, if no conflicts.policy has been set, the masked objects are loudly reported, even if they are specified with mask.ok: --- library(igraph, exclude="decompose", mask.ok=c("spectrum","union")) #> #> Attaching package: 'igraph' #> The following object is masked from 'package:stats': #> #> spectrum #> The following object is masked from 'package:base': #> #> union --- It seems that if I specify mask.ok, that particular masking is expected and should NOT be reported, regardless of what the conflicts.policy is. It would be very useful for many users who are not ready to switch over to a strict conflicts.policy, to nevertheless be able to suppress messages about expected conflicts using mask.ok and thus only get messages when unexpected masking occurs. ===== Best, Magnus [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.