From jeffrey.ryan at lemnica.com  Tue Oct 18 18:47:56 2011
From: jeffrey.ryan at lemnica.com (Jeffrey Ryan)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:47:56 -0500
Subject: [Rd] readRDS and saveRDS
In-Reply-To: <CABdHhvHUw8D_ejfaxmkUqtB7hZ-F595TuZVBre2D9_az1UcgfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABdHhvFEpU2zjcV+_Xd_vzrcM__VZ2PMSUgjKCHGYm38Xh+W2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E9DAA89.7050601@gmail.com>
	<CABdHhvHUw8D_ejfaxmkUqtB7hZ-F595TuZVBre2D9_az1UcgfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABDUZc-HvCh2EsTCmn3QFMYD7JbE-Tqy16h8w8yY0YrXcr+Seg@mail.gmail.com>

As load involves a side-effect, I would think that loadRDS is a bad idea.

That said, read/write is far more consistent across all languages and
internally with R than read/save is.

My (worthless) vote is for writeRDS.

Jeff

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Hadley Wickham <hadley at rice.edu> wrote:
>>> Is there any chance that readRDS and saveRDS might one day become
>>> read.rds and write.rds? ?That would make them more consistent with the
>>> other reading and writing functions.
>>
>> Ending names in .foo is a bad idea because of the S3 naming conventions, so
>> I think this is unlikely. ?But you can always create an alias yourself...
>
> It just makes teaching that much harder. ?We have the pairs:
>
> * read.csv and write.csv
> * load and save
> * readRDS and saveRDS
>
> Even loadRDS/saveRDS or readRDS/writeRDS would be better than the current combo.
>
> Hadley
>
> --
> Assistant Professor / Dobelman Family Junior Chair
> Department of Statistics / Rice University
> http://had.co.nz/
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>



-- 
Jeffrey Ryan
jeffrey.ryan at lemnica.com

www.lemnica.com
www.esotericR.com



[Rd] readRDS and saveRDS
Jeffrey Ryan