search for: darwinian

Hi all, Legend has it, that polite R programmers don't overwrite, say, the print function. However, this seems quite un-Darwinian to me (especially given that I don't want to call all my arguments x and y). I might want a function print.foo (myfoo, ...). So I decided to be very impolite (in one of my packages) and overwrite a few standard generics. Plus, to the best of my knowledge it doesn't interfere with normal us...

Won't it be better to have a convention that allows lowercase, dash, underscore and dot as only valid characters for new package names and keep the ancient format validation scheme for older package names? This could be implemented by a single function, taking a strictNaming_b_1 parameter which defaults to true. Easy to use, and compliance results will vary according to the parameter value,

Creeping code complexity ... I like to think that the cuteR names will have a Darwinian disadvantage in the long run. FWIW Hadley Wickham argues (rightly, I think) against mixed-case names: http://r-pkgs.had.co.nz/package.html#naming. I too am guilty of picking mixed-case package names in the past. Extra credit if the package name and the standard function have different cases! e.g....

Hello, I have a situation here. I use a French dictionary "Le Petit Robert 2003" on a daily basis for my studies and it's probably the only thing left that ties me to Microsoft Windows. The problem when running it with Wine is that I am asked for a CD to be inserted. This application just won't run without it. The thing is that it shouldn't require a CD since I have made a

...his could be applied to new packages and to some extends to package upgrades What do you think of a such approach? Le ven. 9 ao?t 2019 ? 20:18, Ben Bolker <bbolker at gmail.com> a ?crit : > > Creeping code complexity ... > > I like to think that the cuteR names will have a Darwinian > disadvantage in the long run. FWIW Hadley Wickham argues (rightly, I > think) against mixed-case names: > http://r-pkgs.had.co.nz/package.html#naming. I too am guilty of picking > mixed-case package names in the past. Extra credit if the package name > and the standard function ha...

...m> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Shared library building problems on Darwin > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:54:14 -0800 > > Hi, > > Thanks, that sounds great. > In case it didn't already come up, I might also suggest making > LOADABLE_MODULE=1 just set SHARED_LIBRARY on non-darwinian systems so > you can just always use LOADABLE_MODULE when writing plugins, and > it'll always do the right thing. Then amending the pass-writing > tutorial to just use LOADABLE_MODULE will be OK. > > (This fall-through to shared-library building is identical to what we > just...

...] Shared library building problems on Darwin > > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:54:14 -0800 > > > > Hi, > > > > Thanks, that sounds great. > > In case it didn't already come up, I might also suggest making > > LOADABLE_MODULE=1 just set SHARED_LIBRARY on non-darwinian systems so > > you can just always use LOADABLE_MODULE when writing plugins, and > > it'll always do the right thing. Then amending the pass-writing > > tutorial to just use LOADABLE_MODULE will be OK. > > > > (This fall-through to shared-library building is identi...

Hello Railists and Rubyists, I know that the topic of handling credit card numbers has been expounded before on this list (I''ve searched the archives) but I want to ask the question in a slightly different way, and get your feedback: Previous discussions on the list center around what to do with the card number *after* you have processed the credit card with a payment gateway