From pgilbert at bank-banque-canada.ca  Tue Sep 20 17:30:10 2005
From: pgilbert at bank-banque-canada.ca (Paul Gilbert)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:30:10 -0400
Subject: [Rd] Shy Suggestion?
In-Reply-To: <m2d5n3hiyw.fsf@macaroni.local>
References: <1127222728.21824.15.camel@biol102145.oulu.fi>	<433011BE.8090007@jhsph.edu>	<1127224092.21824.20.camel@biol102145.oulu.fi>	<Pine.LNX.4.61.0509201459490.7077@gannet.stats>	<43301AF1.9080902@fhcrc.org>
	<m2d5n3hiyw.fsf@macaroni.local>
Message-ID: <43302B02.5030201@bank-banque-canada.ca>

Seth Falcon wrote:

>On 20 Sep 2005, rgentlem at fhcrc.org wrote:
>  
>
>>As I said above, and will try to emphasize, I really do not want R
>>CMD check to do any checking of Uses (unless asked to do
>>so). Developers that use Uses need to make sure that their package
>>works and passes R CMD check whether the package is there or not.
>>    
>>
>
>One of the potential gotchas with the current Suggests and R CMD check
>setup is that developers cannot easily test whether or not their package
>behaves well (e.g. the examples fail gracefully) when packages listed
>in Suggests are not available.
>
>As a package developer, I'd like easy ways to check my package under
>the "everything is there" scenario and under the "only the minimum
>requirements are available" scenario.
>
I suspect a lot of us are doing this by using

>Achim Zeileis wrote:
>  if(require(foo)) {
>    x <- foo(...)
>    bar(x)
>  }
>  
>
and not putting foo in "Suggests."  Robert's solution will solve this by 
having us put foo in "Uses," but then will "Suggests" still have a 
purpose?  Perhaps it would be better just to return to what many of us 
thought was the original meaning of "Suggests."

I related problem is that if there are circular "Suggests" I think there 
is a problem.

Paul

>
>+ seth
>
>______________________________________________
>R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>  
>



[Rd] Shy Suggestion?
Paul Gilbert