{
>cat("args were ", names(list(...)), "\n")
>stop("Error in parse_args")
> }
>
> f(a = 1, b = 2)
> #> args were a b
> #> Error in parse_args(a = 1, b = 2): Error in parse_args
>
> Duncan Murdoch
>
>
> On 14/12/2022 8:35 p
sibly
>
> do.call(parse_args, as.list(call[-1]))
>
> Cheers,
> Simon
>
> PS: Note that ::: is expensive - it probably doesn't matter here, but
> would in repeatedly called functions.
>
>
> > On 15/12/2022, at 12:19 PM, David Kepplinger
> wrote:
> >
&g
Dear List,
I am working on updating the pense package and refactored some of the
methods. I have several functions which take the same arguments, hence I'm
sending all these arguments to an internal function, called `parse_args()`.
Since I want to evaluate the arguments in the caller's environment
one? Or is there maybe another,
> better solution?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Dominic Comtois, summarytools author & maintainer
>
> ______
> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
>
--
David Kepplin
___
> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
>
--
David Kepplinger, PhD
https://www.dkepplinger.org
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
;
> All user-level objects in a package (including S4 classes and methods)
> should have documentation entries.
> ...
>
> Bit of information: I am running the R CMD check with R 3.6.1 (sorry, I
> cannot update on my corporate machine :( )
>
> Thanks in advance for your help
> __
> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
>
--
David Kepplinger, PhD
https://www.dkepplinger.org
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
__
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
--
David Kepplinger, PhD
https://www.dkepplinger.org
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Hi Núria,
I've never used qmap, but looking at the source code it seems it's not
using S3 or S4 methods in `doQmap()` but is looking for the proper method
using `exists()`. Given that your package doesn't import the required
function, it's not found by `exists()` and the `doQmap()` function
compla
ans
> that this is what you actually do (i.e. use those objects outside the
> namespace of the package). I would be grateful to CRAN for asking me to
> export and hence document this.
>
>
> Georgi Boshnakov
>
> PS Note that there is no such thing as "public namespace&q
s is in contrast to what one might expect from exploring things on the
> command line, where foo is defined in the global environment and, by
> convention, the global environment is not serialized to the workers
>
> > foo <- function() 1
> > bar <- function(...) foo()
>
Dear list members,
I submitted an update for my package and got automatically rejected by the
incoming checks (as expected from my own checks) for using `:::` calls to
access the package's namespace.
"There are ::: calls to the package's namespace in its code. A package
*almost* never needs to use
Dear List-Members:
The email from the automatic incoming checks says to "reply-all" in case
one suspects a false-positive, yet the reply-to header is set only to "
cran-submissi...@r-project.org". My email program (just as myself)
interprets this as "reply-all means replying only to
cran-submissi.
Dear Community,
I am in the process of submitting an update for my package
(https://cran.r-project.org/package=pense), but it does not pass the
incoming checks. After discussion on this list (thread "CRAN incoming
checks fail due to non-staged installation"), I am fairly certain the
issue is a fal
yway. I am not
> entirely certain, but Tomas and/or Prof Ripley will know for sure.
>
> If you want submit your package before the bug is fixed, I suggest you
> explain this directly to CRAN when you submit your package.
>
> Best,
> Gabor
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 3:18 PM
> [...]
>
> then everything is fine, there is no NOTE here, AFAICT.
>
> If you see a NOTE about this, please post 1) a link to your package,
> and 2) a link to the win-builder output.
>
> Thanks,
> Gabor
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 12:13 AM David Kepplinger
ue? I have asked the CRAN
team last week to flag the issue as a false positive, but I haven't heard
back so I assume it's something I have to fix.
Thanks,
David
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 3:34 PM David Kepplinger
wrote:
> Thank you, Max, for the clarification.
> I have added the opti
, one question still remains: why was the behaviour different for
> the two architectures.
>
> Max
> --
> *From:* R-package-devel on behalf
> of David Kepplinger
> *Sent:* March 13, 2019 3:39 PM
> *To:* r-package-devel@r-project.org
> *Subject
Dear Community,
I am trying to update the pense package on CRAN to fix `autoreconf`
problems, but the incoming checks fail for Windows (r-devel) with 2 NOTEs.
The first NOTE is a HTTP 403 for a http://doi.org URL which I already know
about and can not change, but the other NOTE is more obscure to
18 matches
Mail list logo
