On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 10:05 -0800, Seth Falcon wrote: > > This came up because of some issues with the sequencing of code in > my > > package. Adding duplicate setGeneric's seems like the smallest, and > > therefore safest, change if the duplication is not a problem. > > I'm not sure of the answer to your question, but I think it is the > wrong > question :-) > > Perhaps you can provide more detail on why you are using multiple > calls > to setGeneric. That seems like a very odd thing to do. My system is defined in a collection of .R files, most of which are organized around classes. So the typical file has a setClass(), setGeneric()'s, and setMethod()'s.
If files that were read in later in the sequence extended an existing generic, I omitted the setGeneric(). I had to resequence the order in which the files were read to avoid some "undefined slot classes" warnings. The resequencing created other problems, including some cases in which I had a setMethod without a previous setGeneric. I have seen the advice to sequence the files so that class definitions, then generic definitions, and finally function and method definitions occur. I am trying not to do that for two reasons. First, I'm trying to keep the changes I make small to avoid introducing errors. Second, I prefer to keep all the code related to a single class in a single file. Some of the files were intended for free-standing use, and so it would be useful if they could retain setGeneric()'s even if I also need an earlier setGeneric to make the whole package work. I am also working on a python script to extract all the generic function defintions (that is, setGeneric()), just in case. Ross Boylan ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
