Having been around a while and part of several programming language and other standards (see ISO 6373:1984 and IEEE 754-1985), I prefer some democracy at the level of getting a standard. Though perhaps at the design level I can agree with Hadley. However, we're now at the stage of needing to clean up R and actually get rid of some serious annoyances, in which I would include my own contributions that appear in optim(), namely the Nelder-Mead, BFGS and CG options for which there are replacements.
In the tibble/data-frame issue, it would appear there could be a resolution with some decision making at the R-core level, and whether that is democratic or ad-hoc, it needs to happen. JN On 2017-09-26 05:08 PM, Hadley Wickham wrote: > > I'm not sure that democracy works for programming language design. > > Hadley > ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
