Am 08.05.2023 um 15:48 schrieb Duncan Murdoch:
On 08/05/2023 8:28 a.m., Ulrike Groemping wrote:
Thanks, Duncan. I appreciate the view that levels.no acts as an S3
method for the generic levels, if an object of class "no" is handed to
it. However, as the function is not intended as an S3 method, it does
not make sense to document it as such. As the function is internal only,
which makes the scenario that it causes trouble extremely unlikely, I
will simply comment out the usage line for the function in order to get
rid of the note but keep the usage visible. I hope that this is OK.
I think that should solve the warning issue, and it's better than
documenting it as an S3 method when it's not intended to be one.
I don't know how likely it is to cause trouble. You do call levels(),
but I don't know if you ever call it on objects that weren't created
internally. If so, then there's the possibility that one of them will
have that "no" class for a completely unrelated reason, and then there
will be trouble.
Duncan Murdoch
It solved the documentation warning issue, but another issue followed
suit (found in the submission pretests only):
"Mismatches for apparent methods not registered:
levels:
function(x)
levels.no:
function(xx)"
I now changed the argument of levels.no to x, registered the method (as
I was under the impression that not registering it would trigger the
next complaint; of course, registering it might make it more likely to
be mis-used). For preventing unnoticed problems, I made the function
throw a meaningful error message ("DoE.base:::levels.no is not a method
for the generic base::levels") in the (hopefully unlikely) case that it
is handed an object of class "no" by someone who wants to use a levels
method on that object. This version now passed the pretest checks.
Ulrike Groemping
Best, Ulrike
Am 08.05.2023 um 13:58 schrieb Duncan Murdoch:
There really isn't such a thing as "a function that looks like an S3
method, but isn't". If it looks like an S3 method, then in the proper
circumstances, it will be called as one.
In your case the function name is levels.no, and it isn't exported.
So if you happen to have an object with a class inheriting from "no",
and you call levels() on it, levels.no might be called.
This will only affect users of your package indirectly. If they have
objects inheriting from "no" and call levels() on them, levels.no will
not be called. But if they pass such an object to one of your package
functions, and that function calls levels() on it, they could end up
calling levels.no(). It all depends on what other classes that object
inherits from.
You can test this yourself. Set debugging on any one of your
functions, then call it in the normal way. Then while still in the
debugger set debugging on levels.no, and create an object using
x <- structure(1, class = "no")
and call levels(x). You should break to the code of levels.no.
That is why the WRE manual says "First, a caveat: a function named
gen.cl will be invoked by the generic gen for class cl, so do not name
functions in this style unless they are intended to be methods."
So probably the best solution (even if inconvenient) is to rename
levels.no to something that doesn't look like an S3 method.
Duncan Murdoch
On 08/05/2023 5:50 a.m., Ulrike Groemping wrote:
Thank your for the solution attempt. However, using the keyword
internal
does not solve the problem, the note is still there. Any other
proposals
for properly documenting a function that looks like an S3 method, but
isn't?
Best, Ulrike
Am 05.05.2023 um 12:56 schrieb Iris Simmons:
You can add
\keyword{internal}
to the Rd file. Your documentation won't show up the in the pdf
manual, it won't show up in the package index, but you'll still be
able to access the doc page with ?levels.no <http://levels.no> or
help("levels.no <http://levels.no>").
This is usually used in a package's deprecated and defunct doc pages,
but you can use it anywhere.
On Fri, May 5, 2023, 06:49 Ulrike Groemping
<ulrike.groemp...@bht-berlin.de> wrote:
Dear package developeRs,
I am working on fixing some notes regarding package DoE.base.
One note refers to the function levels.no <http://levels.no>
and
complains that the
function is not documented as a method for the generic function
levels.
Actually, it is not a method for the generic levels, but a
standalone
internal function that I like to have documented.
Is there a way to document the function without renaming it and
without
triggering a note about method documentation?
Best, Ulrike
--
##############################################
## Prof. Ulrike Groemping
## FB II
## Berliner Hochschule für Technik (BHT)
##############################################
## prof.bht-berlin.de/groemping
<http://prof.bht-berlin.de/groemping>
## Phone: +49(0)30 4504 5127
## Fax: +49(0)30 4504 66 5127
## Home office: +49(0)30 394 04 863
##############################################
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
