From bbo|ker @end|ng |rom gm@||@com  Fri Aug  9 22:20:08 2019
From: bbo|ker @end|ng |rom gm@||@com (Ben Bolker)
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 16:20:08 -0400
Subject: [Rd] Underscores in package names
In-Reply-To: <7c89e005-37a4-16f9-4ef7-f3f186213944@gmail.com>
References: <CAD6tx94RYHAWCFVuMgMXLUUFG3BgKSCfs3Un=SStQ7rCtgAUSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFxdiRMmGwf1AWEBPvu4xtkhQpC6-Xoava2ZVwgxcz0jRkYyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN--Dz2=ScCo985xtKQrVbmkWEq4hq=q2QD5V-DKQxeCQdhNrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD4oTHHGvPDXg1uKhMO9KKjgPRDfYxUug8fTLLwj-sJdUw9Vfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <7c89e005-37a4-16f9-4ef7-f3f186213944@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a3770583-0131-6cca-f12b-80b0e139e079@gmail.com>


 Ugh, but not *as* ambiguous as the proposed example (you can still
split unambiguously on "_"; yes, you could split on "last _" in
Gabriel's example, but ...)

On 2019-08-09 4:17 p.m., Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 09/08/2019 2:41 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote:
>> Note that this proposal would make mypackage_2.3.1 a valid *package
>> name*,
>> whose corresponding tarball name might be mypackage_2.3.1_2.3.2 after a
>> patch. Yes its a silly example, but why allow that kind of ambiguity?
>>
> CRAN already has a package named "FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2", whose tarball is
> FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2_3.2.tar.gz, so I think we've already lost that game.
> 
> Duncan Murdoch
>



[Rd] Underscores in package names
Ben Bolker