> Creeping code complexity ... > > I like to think that the cuteR names will have a Darwinian > disadvantage in the long run. FWIW Hadley Wickham argues (rightly, I > think) against mixed-case names: > http://r-pkgs.had.co.nz/package.html#naming.
Good development environments will offer content assist (or tab completion or similar) which will not be hindered by naming conventions (whether camel case, dromedary case or other forms that snaked into the R world). Talking about Darwinian advantages, Wikipedia[1] just taught me about the existence of 'darwin case' ?! Best, Tobias [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel_case > On 2019-08-09 2:00 p.m., neonira Arinoem wrote: >> Won't it be better to have a convention that allows lowercase, dash, >> underscore and dot as only valid characters for new package names and keep >> the ancient format validation scheme for older package names? >> >> This could be implemented by a single function, taking a strictNaming_b_1 >> parameter which defaults to true. Easy to use, and compliance results will >> vary according to the parameter value, allowing strict compliance for new >> package names and lazy compliance for older ones. >> >> Doing so allows to enforce a new package name convention while also >> insuring continuity of compliance for already existing package names. >> >> Fabien GELINEAU alias Neonira >> >> Le ven. 9 août 2019 à 18:40, Kevin Wright <kw.s...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >>> Please, no. I'd also like to disallow uppercase letters in package names. >>> For instance, the cuteness of using a capital "R" in package names is >>> outweighed by the annoyance of trying to remember which packages use an >>> upper-case letter. >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jim Hester <james.f.hes...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Are there technical reasons that package names cannot be snake case? >>>> This seems to be enforced by `.standard_regexps()$valid_package_name` >>>> which currently returns >>>> >>>> "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:].]*[[:alnum:]]" >>>> >>>> Is there any technical reason this couldn't be altered to accept `_` >>>> as well, e.g. >>>> >>>> "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]._]*[[:alnum:]]" >>>> >>>> I realize that historically `_` has not always been valid in variable >>>> names, but this has now been acceptable for 15+ years (since R 1.9.0 I >>>> believe). Might we also allow underscores for package names? >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> ______________________________________________ >>>> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list >>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kevin Wright >>> >>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >>> >>> ______________________________________________ >>> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> >> >> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
