R devel - Aug 2024 - specials and ::

Thanks to all for the responses. A couple notes It is nice to get the overall
feedback
that I'm not nuts to be terribly annoyed by this, and don't need to fix
it tomorrow.
Berwin 's note brings to mind the old adage that "The reason it is so
hard to make things
foolproof is that fools are so ingeneous." 1. Using survival::strata(inst)
in the rhs of
the survdiff call does not generate an error message. Because the stata function
is not
recognized as special one instead gets the wrong answer. (Or I should say,
"the correct
answer to a different question".) Ditto for most of the rest of the package
functions. The
very worst kind of bug. 2. Using specials =c("strata",
"survival::strata") could work. I
always process the result with a small "untangle.specials" function, a
leftover from when
R and Splus returned slightly different formula structures. I could put
post-processing
there. I'll think on this some more. But Ivan's follow-up was not
encouraging. 3. Bill's
suggestion to pre-fix the formula. Not a bad idea. If I followed the Call <-
match.call()
that lives at the top of my code by an immediate fix of the formula portion of
the list,
then all else would flow. And as perhaps a bit of a snark, the user would see
the
corrected form in their printout. The nuts who want to call a survival routine
without
attaching the name space will be out of luck though. Terry
	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

I wouldn't go so far as to call people who don't want to wholesale
attach
namespaces as "nuts."

{survival} is provided via the {censored} R package to integrate into the
{tidymodels} ecosystem.
And the reverse imports of the package is massive! Assuming that each and
every one of them
should attach the entire namespace is a bit presumptuous!

I am one of those nuts that likes to namespace everything. It just takes
one conflicting method to
taint it :)



On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 12:44?PM Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel <
r-devel at r-project.org> wrote:
> Thanks to all for the responses. A couple notes It is nice to get the
> overall feedback
> that I'm not nuts to be terribly annoyed by this, and don't need to
fix it
> tomorrow.
> Berwin 's note brings to mind the old adage that "The reason it is
so hard
> to make things
> foolproof is that fools are so ingeneous." 1. Using
survival::strata(inst)
> in the rhs of
> the survdiff call does not generate an error message. Because the stata
> function is not
> recognized as special one instead gets the wrong answer. (Or I should say,
> "the correct
> answer to a different question".) Ditto for most of the rest of the
> package functions. The
> very worst kind of bug. 2. Using specials =c("strata",
"survival::strata")
> could work. I
> always process the result with a small "untangle.specials"
function, a
> leftover from when
> R and Splus returned slightly different formula structures. I could put
> post-processing
> there. I'll think on this some more. But Ivan's follow-up was not
> encouraging. 3. Bill's
> suggestion to pre-fix the formula. Not a bad idea. If I followed the Call
> <- match.call()
> that lives at the top of my code by an immediate fix of the formula
> portion of the list,
> then all else would flow. And as perhaps a bit of a snark, the user would
> see the
> corrected form in their printout. The nuts who want to call a survival
> routine without
> attaching the name space will be out of luck though. Terry
>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]