I haven't thought about this carefully, but shouldn't this mostly work?
sort_by.est_table <- function(x, y = c("op", "lhs", "rhs"),
object = x,
by = y,
op_priority = c("=~", "~", "~~", ":=", "~1", "|", "~*~"),
number_rows = TRUE, ...) {
<code unchanged>
}
-Deepayan
On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 at 00:13, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 2024-08-02 10:35 a.m., Shu Fai Cheung wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I have a function (not a method), sort_by(), in one of my packages. A
> > new method with the same name was introduced in the recent versions of
> > R (4.4.0 or 4.4.1, I forgot which one), resulting in potential
> > conflict in users' code.
> >
> > Certainly, users can simply use pkg_name::function_name() to solve the
> > conflict. However, I would like to be consistent with base R and so I
> > am thinking about converting my function to a method for the class for
> > which my function is intended to work on (e.g, est_table).
> >
> > However, my function has arguments different from those in the base R
> sort_by():
> >
> > Base R:
> >
> > sort_by(x, y, ...)
> >
> > My function:
> >
> > sort_by(
> > object,
> > by = c("op", "lhs", "rhs"),
> > op_priority = c("=~", "~", "~~", ":=", "~1", "|", "~*~"),
> > number_rows = TRUE
> > )
> >
> > If I write the function sort_by.est_table(), I would need to match the
> > argument names of the base R sort_by(). However, I think it is a bad
> > idea to rename the arguments in my function and it will break existing
> > code.
> >
> > Any suggestions on how I should proceed? Is keeping my function as-is
> > a better option? Name conflict is not unusual across packages and so
> > users need to learn how to solve this problem anyway. Nevertheless, if
> > possible, I would like to solve the conflict internally such that
> > users do not need to do anything.
>
> I think it's impossible to avoid some inconvenience to your users.
>
> Here's what I'd suggest:
>
> - Create a method for base::sort_by(), as you suggested you could. Use
> the generic's variable names for compatibility, but also add your extra
> variable names as additional arguments, e.g.
>
> sort_by.est_table <- function(x, y, object,
> by = c("op", "lhs", "rhs"),
> op_priority = c("=~", "~", "~~", ":=", "~1", "|", "~*~"),
> number_rows = TRUE, ...) {
>
> # This test seems unlikely: how would we have dispatch here if we
> specified object explicitly?
>
> if (!missing(object) {
> if (!missing(x))
> stop("both x and object specified!")
> x <- object
> }
>
> # This one is more likely to do something:
>
> if (!missing(by)) {
> if (!missing(y))
> stop("both y and by specified!")
> y <- by
> }
>
> # Now proceed using x and y
>
> ...
> }
>
> - Create a separate function, e.g. sort_by_old() which is exactly
> compatible with your old sort_by(). For users where the above doesn't
> just work, they can switch to sort_by_old().
>
> Duncan Murdoch
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
>
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
