Re: [Rd] Suggestion: Not having to export .conflicts.OK in name spaces

From: Seth Falcon <>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:36:14 -0700

On 3/22/10 3:57 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
>>>>>> "SF" == Seth Falcon<>
>>>>>> on Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:47:17 -0700 writes:
> SF> On 3/17/10 9:11 AM, Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
> >> Currently library() and attach() fail to locate an
> >> existing '.conflicts.OK' in a package wit name space,
> >> unless it is exported. Since there should be little
> >> interest in exporting '.conflicts.OK' otherwise, one may
> >> argue that those methods should look for '.conflicts.OK'
> >> even if it is not exported.
> SF> I guess I agree that there is no real value in forcing
> SF> .conflicts.OK to be exported.
> so do I.

So I guess we agree that Henrik's patch would be worth applying.

@Henrik: if you resend your patch with the additions for attach, I will see about putting it in.

> SF> OTOH, this seems like a dubious feature to begin. When
> SF> is it a good idea to use it?
> in cases, the package author thinks (s)he knows what (s)he is
> doing;
> e.g. in the case of Matrix, I could argue that I know about the
> current conflicts, and I would *not* want the users of my
> package be intimidated by warnings about maskings...

I can't say that this convinces me that .conflicts.OK is OK. Are there package authors who realize they do not know what they are doing enough to keep the warning messages :-P

+ seth

Seth Falcon | @sfalcon |

______________________________________________ mailing list
Received on Mon 22 Mar 2010 - 16:38:49 GMT

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Sat 27 Mar 2010 - 14:21:22 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive