similar to: all.equal(data.frame(package_version()), ...) infinite recursion

Hello all, I've developed a prototype package called PopCon (short for popularity contest), a package for tracking the popularity of R and its packages. I'd like this work to be similar in spirit to the Debian package popularity-contest: http://popcon.debian.org/. Once Popcon is loaded, it captures two kinds of information from the user and stores it into a cache: the names of the

(I posted this to the R-devel list yesterday, but I thought others on this list would be interested, so sorry for those who get it twice.) Hello all, I've developed a prototype package called PopCon (short for popularity contest), a package for tracking the popularity of R and its packages. I'd like this work to be similar in spirit to the Debian package popularity-contest:

I mean the `numeric_version` object not a numeric (double/int). Basically to protect me from myself I'd prefer not to have to remember to wrap `getNamespaceVersion()` with `as.package_version()`. I suspect a grep of CRAN may highlight others who are erroneously comparing character objects rather than a comparison between a `numeric_version` object and a character. Tim On 17/10/2024

On 17/10/2024 13:42, Tim Taylor wrote: > I mean the `numeric_version` object not a numeric (double/int). > Basically to protect me from myself I'd prefer not to have to remember > to wrap `getNamespaceVersion()` with `as.package_version()`. > > I suspect a grep of CRAN may highlight others who are erroneously > comparing character objects rather than a comparison between

Can anyone explain what I'm missing here? max(pp1 <- package_version(c("0.99999911.3","1.0.4","1.0.5"))) ## [1] ?1.0.4? max(pp2 <- package_version(c("1.0.3","1.0.4","1.0.5"))) ## [1] ?1.0.5? I've looked at ?package_version , to no avail. Since max() goes to .Primitive("max") I'm having trouble figuring out

Hi, I installed R 3.0.0 on a Windows 2008 Server. When I submitted the following code in R64, library(tools) testInstalledBasic(scope="devel") I get the following message in the R Console: > library(tools) > testInstalledBasic(scope="devel") running tests of consistency of as/is.* creating ?isas-tests.R? running code in ?isas-tests.R? comparing ?isas-tests.Rout? to

On 17 October 2024 at 12:38, Tim Taylor wrote: | Would R-Core be receptive to having getNamespaceVersion() return a | numeric_version object instead of a named character? Is this good enough? What's your actual issue a 'numeric' would address? > as.package_version(getNamespaceVersion("base")) < "4.5.0" [1] TRUE > >

Hi Kurt, On 25 April 2024 at 08:07, Kurt Hornik wrote: | >>>>> Herv? Pag?s writes: | | > Hi Kurt, | > Is it intended that numeric_version() returns an error by default on | > non-character input in R 4.4.0? | | Dear Herve, yes, that's the intention. | | > It seems that I can turn this into a warning by setting | >

Summary: I think you've found a bug. On 26/11/2014, 5:39 PM, Geoff Lee wrote: > Hi > > > > I'm still exploring the R programming universe, so if this is being asked in > the wrong place, or in the wrong way (e.g. too verbose or lacking in crucial > detail or in the wrong format) please let me know > > > > I am trying to understand when the version

On 26/11/2014, 7:38 PM, Geoff Lee wrote: > Many thanks Duncan for the quick response. A little too quick, it seems... > > A bug is a relief in a way. I've been digging my way deeper into this (and > learning more as I go) for several days now - but it is a diversion from (a > diversion from) my main goal :-( > > Is there somewhere specific I should report or log the

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

Hi I'm still exploring the R programming universe, so if this is being asked in the wrong place, or in the wrong way (e.g. too verbose or lacking in crucial detail or in the wrong format) please let me know I am trying to understand when the version constraints for packages which appear in the Imports field of a DESCRIPTION file are checked. Along the way I've hit a snag

On 26/11/2014, 8:29 PM, Geoff Lee wrote: > Hi Duncan > > The difference is that in your call to loadNamespace, the versionCheck list > has 3 components (name, op and version), whereas the documentation only > mentions 2 (op and version). > loadNamespace 'works' for me provided I add a third component to the list > (even a nonsense one). > > What I haven't

Would R-Core be receptive to having getNamespaceVersion() return a numeric_version object instead of a named character? Tim

I know that it has been discussed in the past, but I wanted to ask to revisit the idea of exporting is.formula <- function(x) inherits(x, "formula") from 'stats', parallel to is.data.frame() in 'base', given how widely formulae are used these days in conjunction with data frames, even outside of model fitting functions (e.g., for split-apply). One could argue

Many thanks Duncan for the quick response. A bug is a relief in a way. I've been digging my way deeper into this (and learning more as I go) for several days now - but it is a diversion from (a diversion from) my main goal :-( Is there somewhere specific I should report or log the bug or will that happen from this mailing-list automatically? (I have seen the Bug Tracking link on the

Hi, not sure this is a bug or just an unavoidable undesirable side-effect -- or just me that does not do the right thing. Consider the code and output below. It creates 2 packages: * pkgA * pkgB that creates a method for a generic defined in pkgA Changes in a method for the generic in pkgA (after re-installing pkgA) are not reflected in pkgB, unless pkgB is re-installed against the new

Hi Duncan The difference is that in your call to loadNamespace, the versionCheck list has 3 components (name, op and version), whereas the documentation only mentions 2 (op and version). loadNamespace 'works' for me provided I add a third component to the list (even a nonsense one). What I haven't yet had the fortitude to do is track down through the code to see what the arguments

If I f = function() {} package.skeleton("PkgA", "f", path="/tmp") and then edit man/PkgA-pacakge.Rd to read in part \description{ More about what it does (maybe more than one line) \Sexpr{1} } and then R CMD build PkgA I end up with Saving output to ?/tmp/PkgA/build/PkgA.pdf? ... Warning in file.create(to[okay]) : cannot create file

I was wondering: are the downstream dependencies of a package rebuilt when a package is updated on CRAN? (I'm referring to the binary packages, of course.) The reason I ask is because there are cases where this can cause problems. Suppose that when pkgB is built, it calls pkgA::makeClosure(), which returns a closure that refers to a function in pkgA. Suppose this code is in pkgA 1.0: