You raise an interesting point that I've mulled over a bit: namespace collisions. How many of these issues would go away if there were a better mechanism for managing namespaces? eg in other languages you can control which objects/modules you wish to import from a library. Under this regime I think package developers would be less concerned about exposing functions that otherwise would be private.
On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:27 PM, Gabor Grothendieck <ggrothendi...@gmail.com> wrote: > If ::: is disallowed then its likely that package developers will need > to export more functions to satisfy the consumers of those otherwise > hidden functions but if more functions are exported then there > will be a greater likelihood of conflicts among packages. > > The problem seems to be that there are potentially three sorts of > functions here: > > 1. a function is hidden > 2. a function is accessible via ::: but is not on the search path > 3. a function is on the search path > > The problem arises in attempting to force fit these three concepts > into only two > categories either by removing the first category (as was done previously) > or by removing the second category (which seems to be the new approach). ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
