On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:39 +0100, Peter wrote:
> > Not completely, but I clearly overlooked the fact that such backward
> > compatibility through import statements are common practice in Python.
> > That's an interesting suggestion from Andrew... let me think on how I
> > can tie that together.
> Not completely, but I clearly overlooked the fact that such backward
> compatibility through import statements are common practice in Python.
> That's an interesting suggestion from Andrew... let me think on how I
> can tie that together.
>
> I am also seeing two separate points here:
> - provide
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 10:57 +0100, Peter wrote:
> Laurent wrote:
> >>try:
> >>
> >>import rpy2.robjects as ro
> >>ro.r._dotter = True
> >>ro.r.dev_off()
>
> Andrew wrote:
> > Rather than have a toggle, why not have an alternate proxy object - then
> > you don't polute your new API implementation
Laurent wrote:
>>try:
>>
>>import rpy2.robjects as ro
>>ro.r._dotter = True
>>ro.r.dev_off()
Andrew wrote:
> Rather than have a toggle, why not have an alternate proxy object - then
> you don't polute your new API implementation with legacy support. For
> example:
>
>from rpy2 import compat as
