From ligges at statistik.uni-dortmund.de  Mon Sep 20 12:54:55 2004
From: ligges at statistik.uni-dortmund.de (Uwe Ligges)
Date: Mon Sep 20 12:55:25 2004
Subject: [Rd] Namespace problem
In-Reply-To: <20040920104658.GA32606@stat.umu.se>
References: <20040919165149.GA7954@stat.umu.se>	<16718.38976.221866.25262@gargle.gargle.HOWL>	<20040920090057.GB20279@stat.umu.se>	<16718.45157.239090.972874@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
	<20040920104658.GA32606@stat.umu.se>
Message-ID: <414EB6FF.40609@statistik.uni-dortmund.de>

gb wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 12:26:45PM +0200, Martin Maechler wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>"GB" == G?ran Brostr?m <gb@stat.umu.se>
>>>>>>>    on Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:00:57 +0200 writes:
>>
>>    GB> On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 10:43:44AM +0200, Martin Maechler wrote:
>>    >> >>>>> "GB" == G?ran Brostr?m <gb@stat.umu.se>
>>    >> >>>>>     on Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:51:49 +0200 writes:
>>
> 
> 
>>We do encourage not using "." for new function names because of
>>the reason above, but it's definitely not a requirement.
>>In the case where  'foo'  is an S3 generic function name,
>>we however recommend quite strongly not to use 
>>   'foo.bar'
>>as function name since it looks "too much" like an S3 method.
>>Is this the case for you?
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
>>    GB> But how is this problem connected to using C/Fortran code?
>>
>>only via "namespace magic".
> 
> 
> Yes, magic is the word: I got 'R CMD check' and NAMESPACE working by
> cleaning 'R' from '*.R~' files and 'src' from old '.o' files and an old
> 'eha.so' (from 1.x.x something)!  
> 
> Another thought: Since I really haven't used S3 methods so far, should I go
> for S4 methods directly?

[This is my opinion and might not be shared by others.]
Depends on what you are going to do.
For a set of new classes, generics and methods, I'd go for S4. For 
extending S3 classes or aiming at similar stuff that is closely related 
to existing S3 classes, I'd rather stay with S3.

Uwe Ligges


> G?ran


[Rd] Namespace problem
Uwe Ligges