Re: [Rd] clarification of library/require semantics

From: Seth Falcon <sfalcon_at_fhcrc.org>
Date: Sat 05 Nov 2005 - 19:21:05 GMT

On 4 Nov 2005, ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk wrote:
> I set my standard libraries in R_LIBS, so when I use lib.loc it is
> for experimental things. So I would neither want the .libPaths
> changed nor be affected if they were.

With the current semantics, if one is testing a _collection_ of experimental packages that depend on each other, the only way to test the collection is to modify .libPaths.

Setting lib.loc only allows one to test a single experimental package against dependencies picked up from R_LIBS.

Robert's proposal, as I understand it, would change the meaning of lib.loc so that dependencies would be resolved there --- allowing a collection of experimental packages to be tested against each other.

The current behavior could be replicated in this case by putting a given experimental package in a library by itself.

Clearly, each choice has a tradeoff. I understand that if one most often tests a single independent experimental package, then the current behavior is most convenient.

My preference is for lib.loc grabbing dependencies because I more often deal with packages that have dependencies that I want to test together.

+ seth



R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel Received on Sun Nov 06 06:29:45 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun 06 Nov 2005 - 02:21:12 GMT