Because that exposes the identically named functions and forces the user to sort them out, inviting mistakes, especially when trying to maintain/update them. My view is that one should try to program to make code as robust and maintainable as possible. Nevertheless, as I said, maybe this approach might be viable for the OP's situation
-- Bert On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Siraaj Khandkar <sir...@khandkar.net> wrote: > On 08/03/2013 05:32 PM, Bert Gunter wrote: > <SNIPPED> >> >> >> 4. Or, probably the least desirable approach that may nevertheless be >> what you may want, is just to attach your collections of functions and >> access them by fully qualified names. See ?"::" for details on how to >> do that. >> > > Why do you feel this is least desirable? > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. -- Bert Gunter Genentech Nonclinical Biostatistics Internal Contact Info: Phone: 467-7374 Website: http://pharmadevelopment.roche.com/index/pdb/pdb-functional-groups/pdb-biostatistics/pdb-ncb-home.htm ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.