search for: standard_regexps

Dear R devs, I installed the recent devel R to test a package error when I intercept this warning when loading packages: ``` Warning in .make_numeric_version(x, strict, .standard_regexps()$valid_numeric_version) : invalid non-character version specification 'x' (type: double) ``` After a long debugging, I realize that `numeric_version` in base does not support numerical input x by default now. A reproducible example: R 4.4 ``` > numeric_version(1.5) Warning in .m...

Are there technical reasons that package names cannot be snake case? This seems to be enforced by `.standard_regexps()$valid_package_name` which currently returns "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:].]*[[:alnum:]]" Is there any technical reason this couldn't be altered to accept `_` as well, e.g. "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]._]*[[:alnum:]]" I realize that historically `_` has not always been valid in...

...oyance of trying to remember which packages use an > upper-case letter. > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Are there technical reasons that package names cannot be snake case? > > This seems to be enforced by `.standard_regexps()$valid_package_name` > > which currently returns > > > > "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:].]*[[:alnum:]]" > > > > Is there any technical reason this couldn't be altered to accept `_` > > as well, e.g. > > > > "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]._]*[[...

...if (is.null(lib.loc)) lib.loc <- .libPaths() if (all.available) { ans <- character(0L) lib.loc <- lib.loc[file.exists(lib.loc)] valid_package_version_regexp <- .standard_regexps()$valid_package_version for (lib in lib.loc) { a <- list.files(lib, all.files = FALSE, full.names = FALSE) for (nam in a) {...

...news_db_from_Rd") exiting from: tools:::.build_news_db_from_package_NEWS_Rd(newsfile) Error: invalid version specification CHANGES IN VERSION 1.0.0CHANGES IN VERSION 1.0.1CHANGES IN VERSION 2.0.0 Well, so it didn't like my version numbers. But is the regexp check correct? Browse[2]> .standard_regexps()$valid_package_version [1] "([[:digit:]]+[.-]){1,}[[:digit:]]+" Would appear as though packages with only major.minor comparisons would pass. Or did I miss something... ---- P.S. Another thing I didn't see specified was whether this was an acceptable format in current Rd format:...

...; upper-case letter. >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Are there technical reasons that package names cannot be snake case? >> > > This seems to be enforced by `.standard_regexps()$valid_package_name` >> > > which currently returns >> > > >> > > "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:].]*[[:alnum:]]" >> > > >> > > Is there any technical reason this couldn't be altered to accept `_` >> > > as well, e.g. &...

...ge names is outweighed by the annoyance of trying to remember which packages use an upper-case letter. On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> wrote: > Are there technical reasons that package names cannot be snake case? > This seems to be enforced by `.standard_regexps()$valid_package_name` > which currently returns > > "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:].]*[[:alnum:]]" > > Is there any technical reason this couldn't be altered to accept `_` > as well, e.g. > > "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]._]*[[:alnum:]]" > > I realize that...

...s interested in reviewing it. Jim On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:05 AM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 08/08/2019 10:31 a.m., Jim Hester wrote: > > Are there technical reasons that package names cannot be snake case? > > This seems to be enforced by `.standard_regexps()$valid_package_name` > > which currently returns > > > > "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:].]*[[:alnum:]]" > > > > Is there any technical reason this couldn't be altered to accept `_` > > as well, e.g. > > > > "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]._]*...

...er which packages use an >> upper-case letter. >> >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Are there technical reasons that package names cannot be snake case? >>> This seems to be enforced by `.standard_regexps()$valid_package_name` >>> which currently returns >>> >>> "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:].]*[[:alnum:]]" >>> >>> Is there any technical reason this couldn't be altered to accept `_` >>> as well, e.g. >>> >>> "[[:...

...packages use an > > upper-case letter. > > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Are there technical reasons that package names cannot be snake case? > > > This seems to be enforced by `.standard_regexps()$valid_package_name` > > > which currently returns > > > > > > "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:].]*[[:alnum:]]" > > > > > > Is there any technical reason this couldn't be altered to accept `_` > > > as well, e.g. > > > > >...

...;>> > >>> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > Are there technical reasons that package names cannot be snake case? >>> > > This seems to be enforced by `.standard_regexps()$valid_package_name` >>> > > which currently returns >>> > > >>> > > "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:].]*[[:alnum:]]" >>> > > >>> > > Is there any technical reason this couldn't be altered to accept `_` >>> &...

...gt; upper-case letter. > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Are there technical reasons that package names cannot be snake case? > >>> This seems to be enforced by `.standard_regexps()$valid_package_name` > >>> which currently returns > >>> > >>> "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:].]*[[:alnum:]]" > >>> > >>> Is there any technical reason this couldn't be altered to accept `_` > >>> as well, e.g. > &g...