From pgilbert@bank-banque-canada.ca  Tue Oct 22 16:52:40 2002
From: pgilbert@bank-banque-canada.ca (Paul Gilbert)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:52:40 -0400
Subject: RFC: Loading packages at startup
References: <XFMail.021022093449.Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <3DB57448.F3A60B32@bank-banque-canada.ca>

"(Ted Harding)" wrote:

> ... so that if the user invoked a function which
> had been used in a previous session, packages needed would be loaded

Am I correct in thinking the main need for this is for object
definitions that require a package, rather than for methods? I have the
impression that putting requires() in a function works fairly well. Or
is it needed because methods for the objects need to be available?


> A comment from a practical user's viewpoint. I'm not sure of the value
> of having this happen automatically. 

I wonder about this too. Especially since I seem to spend much more time
debugging code than I do actually using it. Should I be worrying about
something similar to the mixed blessing of .a and .so executables? What
happens when packages are updated, moved to new locations (as systems
administrators are prone to do), or things are moved (among packages or
in/out of base)? What happens when I want the version of a package I am
trying to debug, not the one that is installed? Should there be a
warning if the signature on a package does not match the one originally
used? 

I guess I would like to understand that this is a step forward in
software design, not simply a minor user convenience (and possibly a
headache for developers)? Sorry if I am a bit slow on some of these
things.

Paul Gilbert
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


RFC: Loading packages at startup
Paul Gilbert