search for: valid_package_name

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 variable names, but...

...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:]]" >...

.... >> > >> > 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. >> > > &gt...

...hed 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 historically `_` has...

...iewing 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:]._]*[[:alnum:]]" &gt...

...se 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:]._]...

...; > 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...

...>> > 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...

...er. > >> > >> 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. > >>> > >&...