On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Duncan Murdoch <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13/05/2014 12:14 PM, Knut Krueger wrote: >> >> Is there another new solution for this issue? >> especially I would like to use: >> >> utils:::.win32consoleCompletion >> the use of this is suggested in the completion.r file of utils: >> >> ## test some typical completion attempts >> library(utils) >> testLine <- function(line, cursor = nchar(line)) >> { >> str(utils:::.win32consoleCompletion(line, cursor)) >> } >> >> testLine("") >> > > I think you are misunderstanding the comments in that file. It's an > internal set of tests for the package, so "test some typical completion > attempts" is a description of the tests that follow, it's not a suggestion > that you should be able to run those lines > from your package. > > If you do want access to the completion mechanism from a package, you should > write to its author (Deepayan Sarkar) and explain the kinds of things you > need to do. If you can convince him that giving you access is worth the > trouble of exposing some of it to user-level code, then he'll export a > function for you. (I think it's unlikely to be .win32consoleCompletion, but > who knows.)
Yes, .win32consoleCompletion() was meant for use by the Windows GUI, but I can see a use-case for something similar elsewhere (for example, ESS defines something analogous). But I don't immediately see why another R package should need this. If you have a legitimate use, we can discuss off-list and come up with a solution. -Deepayan > > Duncan Murdoch > > >> (full quote because of the age of the tread) >> >> >> Kind regards Knut >> Am 22.08.2013 20:57, schrieb Michael Friendly: >> > On 8/22/2013 7:45 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On 22.08.2013 07:45, Yihui Xie wrote: >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> So now R CMD check starts to warn against :::, but I believe sometimes >> >>> it is legitimate to use it when developing R packages. For example, I >> >>> have some utils functions that are not exported but I want to share >> >>> them across the packages that I maintain. I do not need to coordinate >> >>> with other authors about these internal functions since I'm the only >> >>> author and I know clearly what I'm doing, and I want to avoid copying >> >>> and pasting the code across packages just to avoid the NOTE in R CMD >> >>> check. What should I do in this case? >> >> >> >> Nothing. The way you describe above seems to be a reasonable usage, iff >> >> you are the same maintainer who knows what is going on. Other >> >> maintainers should not use one of your not exported (hence non API) >> >> functions, of course. >> >> >> >> Uwe Ligges >> >> >> >> >> > >> > Related to this is the use of other-package unexported utility functions >> > that don't pass Uwe's iff test, but I, as maintainer, >> > want to use in my package. >> > >> > Cases in point: in heplots, I had used stats:::Pillai, stats:::Wilks, >> > stats:::Roy and stats:::LH for calculation in one of my functions. >> > Similarly, I had a need to use car:::df.terms, also unexported, but >> > don't want to ask John Fox to export it just for my use. Uwe's >> > reply suggests that I should not be using car:::df.terms, however. >> > >> > To avoid the NOTEs (which often triggers a 'pls fix' upon submission to >> > CRAN), I simply copied/pasted these functions to my package, but this >> > seems wasteful. >> > >> > -Michael >> > >> > >> >> ______________________________________________ >> [email protected] mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > > > ______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel ______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
