From @purd|e@@ @end|ng |rom gm@||@com  Sun Jun  2 05:06:12 2019
From: @purd|e@@ @end|ng |rom gm@||@com (Abby Spurdle)
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 15:06:12 +1200
Subject: [Rd] survival changes
In-Reply-To: <9ecfbe$bq2hcm@ironport10.mayo.edu>
References: <9ecfbe$bq2hcm@ironport10.mayo.edu>
Message-ID: <CAB8pepzpEnd317TN7DgsHRoo51ZRMLNamYNbCMTFYBTGFPYEdg@mail.gmail.com>

> In the next version of the survival package I intend to make a
non-upwardly compatable
> change to the survfit object.  With over 600 dependent packages this is
not something to
> take lightly, and I am currently undecided about the best way to go about
it.  I'm looking
> for advice.
>
> The change: 20+ years ago I had decided not to include the initial
x=0,y=1 data point in
> the survfit object itself.

New Package -> Bad idea.
Copying Python -> The worst idea...
Version element -> Not sure I understand how that works, but probably a bad
idea.

If all you want to do, is add an initial data point, that shouldn't be an
issue.
However, I'm assuming that you want to make other more significant changes
to your object.
So, at face value, a new object class would be the best option, so number
(2) from your list of options.

Note there is another possibility.
With a little bit of tricky-ness, you can check if your constructor is
called by a function inside a package.
In which case, you can check the publication date of that package (if
published after your package), and then then respond accordingly.
Then you can ask the maintainers of the other packages to update their
packages, but at their own time.


Abs

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]



[Rd] survival changes
Abby Spurdle