Gabor Grothendieck wrote: > On 7/6/05, Uwe Ligges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Gabor Grothendieck wrote: >> >> >>>On 7/6/05, Martin Maechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>"Gabor" == Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>>> on Wed, 6 Jul 2005 08:24:49 -0400 writes: >>>> >>>>....................... >>>>....................... >>>> >>>> Gabor> I have cleaned up my batch files (somewhat) and posted them to >>>> Gabor> CRAN. See my recent post: >>>> Gabor> >>>> https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2005-July/073400.html >>>> >>>> Gabor> If any of this functionality could migrate to R >>>> Gabor> itself that would be great. >>>> >>>> ........ >>>> >>>> >>>> Gabor> 2. Also if Rcmd CHECK and Rcmd INSTALL were to >>>> Gabor> process .Rbuildignore like Rcmd BUILD does then >>>> Gabor> makepkg.bat would not have to do a build first. >>>> >>>>No! {We have been here before, and I had explained before that} >>>>this is really undesired: ".Rbuildignore" should contain what is >>>>ignored by build, but not by "check". >>>>It does make sense to have extra code and / or checks for 'R CMD check' >>>>that I as package developer want to run, but that are >>>>-- too time consuming >>>>-- too platform specific >>>>-- ...... >>>>to be run during the daily checks on CRAN (e.g.) / >>>>to be run by others at all. >>>> >>>>{And BTW, AFAIK, 'Rcmd' is now `somewhat deprecated' in favor >>>>of "R CMD" since the latter is portable } >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Martin >>>> >>> >>> >>>I think its too heavy handed an approach. This should be up to the package >>>developer via a switch. I like to put partially written code and other >>>things >>>not intended for distribution in .Rbuildignore and don't want them checked or >>>installed until I move them out of .Rbuildignore. That makes it >>>possible to keep >>>everything together. Without this one must 1. keep them elsewhere >>>(which I am considering as an alternate approach to what I do now although >>>it would be a shame) or else 2. write batch files (which I have >>>written for XP) to do >>>a prebuild every time one does a check or install. >>> >>>One annoying aspect of R CMD is the requirement for capitalization. Maybe >>>that's ok on UNIX but on Windows one is used to using upper and lower >>>case interchangeably. Its also annoying to have to write two words instead >>>of >>>one for a frequently issued command. At any rate I always call it through >> >>Gabor, honestly, this is nonsense. >> >>1. Do you expect that R also changes under Windows because you are used >>to mix upper and lower case and want to say SUMMARY() or rowsums()? >>2. Do you really thing it is annoying to type "R CMD" rather than >>"Rcmd"? Hmm, anybody else has a space bar left for Gabor? >> >>Best, >>Uwe >> >> >>>my Rcmd.bat batch file so its not really an issue for me. > > > It was claimed its portable and that is true in the strictest sense that it > works on both UNIX and Windows but it would be even more > desirable if it were not just portable but also worked the way the target > system worked rather than just acting like a UNIX utility does > on Windows. Ideally it would work as other Windows utilities work, > e.g. note that we run the following using upper and lower case and > get the same result: > > C:> net use ? > The syntax of this command is: > NET USE > [devicename | *] [\\computername\sharename[\volume] [password | *]] > ... > > C:> NET USE ? > The syntax of this command is: > NET USE > [devicename | *] [\\computername\sharename[\volume] [password | *]] > ...
No! That something completely different: If Windows allows to use "net use" and "NET USE" even if only the latter is the documeted way, OK. These are, as you mentioned yourself, *Windows utilities* and you don't want to port this syntax. But if you type "R cmd", it is no longer portable, and "Rcmd" for sure is not. "R CMD" is an R utility --- and R behaves case senstive. Uwe Ligges > A Windows user does not expect the case sensitive behaviour > since just about all the software one uses does not work that way. > I got tripped up by it myself and obviously others do too. e.g. see > this recent post: > https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2005-June/073154.html > > I was just pointing out this undesirable aspect. It may be a small point > but the sum of small inconsistencies can collectively amount to substantial > difficulty and contribute to the feeling that software is hard to use. > > On the other point, I may be spacebar-challenged but Rcmd does address > these points. ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel