Thanks a lot for both suggestions! I haven't thought about these
approaches, They may solve my problem without breaking existing code.
I may just keep the original arguments for backward compatibility.
Coincidentally, "object" and "by" have the same meanings as "x" and
"y" in base::sort_by() and so the matching makes sense.
Regards,
Shu Fai Cheung
On Sat, Aug 3, 2024 at 7:13 PM Deepayan Sarkar
<deepayan.sar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I haven't thought about this carefully, but shouldn't this mostly work?
>
> sort_by.est_table <- function(x, y = c("op", "lhs", "rhs"),
> object = x,
> by = y,
> op_priority = c("=~", "~", "~~", ":=", "~1", "|", "~*~"),
> number_rows = TRUE, ...) {
>
> <code unchanged>
>
> }
>
> -Deepayan
>
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 at 00:13, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2024-08-02 10:35 a.m., Shu Fai Cheung wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I have a function (not a method), sort_by(), in one of my packages. A
>> > new method with the same name was introduced in the recent versions of
>> > R (4.4.0 or 4.4.1, I forgot which one), resulting in potential
>> > conflict in users' code.
>> >
>> > Certainly, users can simply use pkg_name::function_name() to solve the
>> > conflict. However, I would like to be consistent with base R and so I
>> > am thinking about converting my function to a method for the class for
>> > which my function is intended to work on (e.g, est_table).
>> >
>> > However, my function has arguments different from those in the base R
>> > sort_by():
>> >
>> > Base R:
>> >
>> > sort_by(x, y, ...)
>> >
>> > My function:
>> >
>> > sort_by(
>> > object,
>> > by = c("op", "lhs", "rhs"),
>> > op_priority = c("=~", "~", "~~", ":=", "~1", "|", "~*~"),
>> > number_rows = TRUE
>> > )
>> >
>> > If I write the function sort_by.est_table(), I would need to match the
>> > argument names of the base R sort_by(). However, I think it is a bad
>> > idea to rename the arguments in my function and it will break existing
>> > code.
>> >
>> > Any suggestions on how I should proceed? Is keeping my function as-is
>> > a better option? Name conflict is not unusual across packages and so
>> > users need to learn how to solve this problem anyway. Nevertheless, if
>> > possible, I would like to solve the conflict internally such that
>> > users do not need to do anything.
>>
>> I think it's impossible to avoid some inconvenience to your users.
>>
>> Here's what I'd suggest:
>>
>> - Create a method for base::sort_by(), as you suggested you could. Use
>> the generic's variable names for compatibility, but also add your extra
>> variable names as additional arguments, e.g.
>>
>> sort_by.est_table <- function(x, y, object,
>> by = c("op", "lhs", "rhs"),
>> op_priority = c("=~", "~", "~~", ":=", "~1", "|", "~*~"),
>> number_rows = TRUE, ...) {
>>
>> # This test seems unlikely: how would we have dispatch here if we
>> specified object explicitly?
>>
>> if (!missing(object) {
>> if (!missing(x))
>> stop("both x and object specified!")
>> x <- object
>> }
>>
>> # This one is more likely to do something:
>>
>> if (!missing(by)) {
>> if (!missing(y))
>> stop("both y and by specified!")
>> y <- by
>> }
>>
>> # Now proceed using x and y
>>
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> - Create a separate function, e.g. sort_by_old() which is exactly
>> compatible with your old sort_by(). For users where the above doesn't
>> just work, they can switch to sort_by_old().
>>
>> Duncan Murdoch
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
