Hi Jeff, You're right. Indeed, assume default values are provided. I should have been more precise.
I understand that the positional behaviour has changed. But I wonder if it always matters. OTOH I appreciate the force of the idea that an API change is an API change, and should be defined precisely. Best, David On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 15:01, Jeff Newmiller <jdnew...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > Both of your examples are incompatible. > > foo <- function (a, b, c, d, e = NA ) > > (add with default value) would be compatible. > > Your second example cannot be made compatible even with default values > because the positional behaviour has changed. > > On September 25, 2019 6:51:58 AM PDT, David Hugh-Jones < > davidhughjo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >Philosophical question. My package follows semantic versioning ( > >https://semver.org). Incompatible API changes should trigger a major > >version upgrade. OK, but what counts as an incompatible change to an R > >API? > >Suppose my current function signature is > > > >foo <- function (a, b, c, d) > > > >and the new one is > > > >foo <- function (a, b, c, d, e) > > > >is that compatible? What if I add an argument, but not at the end: > > > >foo <- function (a, b, c, e, d) > > > >That would be incompatible if people have been calling the arguments by > >order rather than by name. But sometimes that is unlikely: I doubt if > >many > >people write > > > >lm(y ~ x, mydata, z==3, f, na.omit, "qr", FALSE, FALSE, TRUE, TRUE, > >FALSE) > > > >Should I be strict or relaxed about this? > > > >Cheers, > >David > > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > > >______________________________________________ > >R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > >https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > > -- > Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
