On 09/08/2019 2:41 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote:> Note that this proposal would make mypackage_2.3.1 a valid *package name*, > whose corresponding tarball name might be mypackage_2.3.1_2.3.2 after a > patch. Yes its a silly example, but why allow that kind of ambiguity? >CRAN already has a package named "FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2", whose tarball is FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2_3.2.tar.gz, so I think we've already lost that game. Duncan Murdoch
Ugh, but not *as* ambiguous as the proposed example (you can still split unambiguously on "_"; yes, you could split on "last _" in Gabriel's example, but ...) On 2019-08-09 4:17 p.m., Duncan Murdoch wrote:> On 09/08/2019 2:41 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote: >> Note that this proposal would make mypackage_2.3.1 a valid *package >> name*, >> whose corresponding tarball name might be mypackage_2.3.1_2.3.2 after a >> patch. Yes its a silly example, but why allow that kind of ambiguity? >> > CRAN already has a package named "FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2", whose tarball is > FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2_3.2.tar.gz, so I think we've already lost that game. > > Duncan Murdoch >
Duncan, On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:17 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote:> On 09/08/2019 2:41 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote: > > Note that this proposal would make mypackage_2.3.1 a valid *package > name*, > > whose corresponding tarball name might be mypackage_2.3.1_2.3.2 after a > > patch. Yes its a silly example, but why allow that kind of ambiguity? > > > CRAN already has a package named "FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2", whose tarball is > FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2_3.2.tar.gz, so I think we've already lost that game. >I suppose technically 2 is a valid version number for a package (?) so I suppose you have me there. But as Ben pointed out while I was writing this, all I can really say is that in practice they read to me (as someone who has administered R on a large cluster and written build-system software for it) as substantially different levels of ambiguity. I do acknowledge, as Ben does, that yes a more complex regular expression/splitting algorithm can be written that would handle the more general package names. I just don't personally see a motivation that justifies changing something this fundamental (even if it is both narrow and was initially more or less arbitrarily chosen) about R at this late date. I guess at the end of the day, I guess what I'm saying is that breaking and changing things is sometimes good, but if we're going to rock the boat personally I'd want to do so going after bigger wins than this one. Thats just my opinion though. Best, ~G> Duncan Murdoch > >[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
On 09/08/2019 4:37 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote:> Duncan, > > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:17 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com > <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 09/08/2019 2:41 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote: > > Note that this proposal would make mypackage_2.3.1 a valid > *package name*, > > whose corresponding tarball name might be mypackage_2.3.1_2.3.2 > after a > > patch. Yes its a silly example, but why allow that kind of ambiguity? > > > CRAN already has a package named "FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2", whose tarball is > FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2_3.2.tar.gz, so I think we've already lost that game. > > > I suppose technically 2 is a valid version number for a package (?) so I > suppose you have me there. But as Ben pointed out while I was writing > this, all I can really say is that in practice they read to me (as > someone who has administered R on a large cluster and written > build-system software for it) as substantially different levels of > ambiguity. I do acknowledge, as Ben does, that yes a more complex > regular expression/splitting algorithm can be written that would handle > the more general package names. I just don't personally see a motivation > that justifies changing something this fundamental (even if it is both > narrow and was initially more or less arbitrarily chosen) about R at > this late date. > > I guess at the end of the day, I guess what I'm saying is that breaking > and changing things is sometimes good, but if we're going to rock the > boat personally I'd want to do so going after bigger wins than this one. > Thats just my opinion though.Sorry, I wasn't clear. I agree with you. I was just saying that the particular argument based on ugly tarball names isn't the reason. Duncan Murdoch