But I don't see a problem with "package("package")", though I'm sure
I'm missing something.
It really would end this constant confusion and save various folks
approx 15 minutes/week in knee-jerk responses, eh?
best,
-tony
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:09:42 +0100, Martin Maechler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>> "tony" == A J Rossini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>> on Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:33:23 +0100 writes:
>
> tony> For OBVIOUS reasons, is there any chance that we could introduce
> tony> "package()" and deprecate "library()"?
>
> This idea is not new {as you must surely have guessed}. In fact,
> there's a much longer standing proposition of "usePackage()"
> (IIRC, or "use.package()" ?). However, we (R-core) always had
> wanted to also provide a ``proper'' class named "package"
> along with this, but for several reasons didn't get around to it.. yet.
>
> -- I've diverted to R-devel now that we are really talking about
> desired future behavior of R
>
> tony> (well, I'll also ask if we could deprecate "=" for assignment, but
> tony> that's hopeless).
> :-)
>
> tony> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:49:39 +0100, Martin Maechler
> tony> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>>>> "Pavel" == Pavel Khomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >>>>> on Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:20:03 +0100 writes:
> >>
> Pavel> this is a question, how can i specify the random part
> Pavel> in the GLMM-call (of the lme4 library) for compound
> Pavel> matrices just in the the same way as they defined in
> Pavel> the lme-Call (of the nlme library).
> >>
> >> ``twice in such a short paragraph -- yikes !!'' ... I'm getting
> >> convulsive...
> >>
> >> There is NO lme4 library nor an nlme one !
> >> There's the lme4 *PACKAGE* and the nlme *PACKAGE* -- please --
> >>
> >> ....................
>
--
best,
-tony
"Commit early,commit often, and commit in a repository from which we can easily
roll-back your mistakes" (AJR, 4Jan05).
A.J. Rossini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________________________________________
R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
