From murdoch.duncan at gmail.com  Fri Jun 12 13:12:41 2015
From: murdoch.duncan at gmail.com (Duncan Murdoch)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:12:41 -0400
Subject: [Rd] RFC: Declaring "foo.bar" as nonS3method() ?!
In-Reply-To: <web-562839593@cgpsrv2.cis.mcmaster.ca>
References: <000e01d0a387$885ad130$99107390$@mcmaster.ca>	<21882.36966.429889.227076@stat.math.ethz.ch>	<21882.37975.726216.982364@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<web-562839593@cgpsrv2.cis.mcmaster.ca>
Message-ID: <557ABEA9.2050809@gmail.com>

On 12/06/2015 6:41 AM, John Fox wrote:
> And my non-cross-posted cross-posting:
> 
> "Dear Martin,
> 
> Thank you for addressing this issue. Introducing a nonS3method() directive in NAMESPACE seems a reasonable solution. It could replace export() for functions with "."s in their names.

I think these are separate questions:  all.effects() could be exported
or not, and independently could be an S3 method or not.

Duncan Murdoch

> Best,
>  John"
> 
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:12:07 +0200
>  Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
>> This is a topic ' "apparent S3 methods" note in R CMD check '
>> from R-package-devel  
>>      https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-package-devel/2015q2/000126.html
>>
>> which is relevant to here because some of us have been thinking
>> about extending R  because of the issue.
>>
>> John Fox, maintainer of the 'effects' package has enquired about
>> the following  output from  'R CMD check effects' 
>>
>>     >> * checking S3 generic/method consistency ... NOTE
>>     >> Found the following apparent S3 methods exported but not registered:
>>     >> all.effects
>>
>> and added
>>
>>     >> The offending function, all.effects(), is deprecated in favour of
>>     >> allEffects(), but I'd rather not get rid of it for backwards compatibility.
>>     >> Is there any way to suppress the note without removing all.effects()? 
>>
>> and I had agreed that this was a "False Positive" in this case.
>>
>>     [.......]
>>
>> and then
>>
>>     > Now I agree .. and have e-talked about this with another R core
>>     > member .. that it would be desirable for the package author to
>>     > effectively declare the fact that such a function is not an S3
>>     > method even though it "looks like it" at least if looked from far.
>>
>>     > So, ideally, you could have something like
>>
>>     > nonS3method("all.effects")
>>
>>     > somewhere in your package source ( in NAMESPACE or R/*.R )
>>     > which would tell the package-checking code -- but *ALSO* all the other S3
>>     > method code that  all.effects should be treated as a regular R
>>     > function.
>>
>>     > I would very much like such a feature in R, and for that reason,
>>     > I'm cross posting this (as one of the famous exceptions that
>>     > accompany real-life rules!!) to R-devel.
>>
>> and actually I did *not* cross post, but have now moved the
>> relevant part of the thread to  R-devel.
>>
>> Martin Maechler,
>> ETH Zurich
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> 
> ------------------------------------------------
> John Fox, Professor
> McMaster University
> Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
> http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox/
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>



[Rd] RFC: Declaring "foo.bar" as nonS3method() ?!
Duncan Murdoch