similar to: Underscores in package names

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,

I do not follow you Gabriel. Package name must not use digit numbers. Tarbal will use them, taken from the DESCRIPTION file, version field. That's why I consider the weird case name you presented as irrelevant, and not to be considered. Le ven. 9 ao?t 2019 ? 20:41, Gabriel Becker <gabembecker at gmail.com> a ?crit : > > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:05 AM neonira Arinoem

To be clear, I'd be happy to contribute code to make this work, with the changes mentioned by Duncan and elsewhere in the codebase, if someone on R-core was 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

Please, no. I'd also like to disallow uppercase letters in package names. For instance, the cuteness of using a capital "R" in package 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

Naming policies are always tricky. The one proposed by Hadley, as the one proposed by Google, are usable but not optimal according to most common needs, that are 1. Name a package 2. Name a class 3. Name a function 4. Name a parameter of a function 5. Name a variable My approach is the following 1. Package names should be made of lowercase characters, dash, dot and underscore 2. Class names

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.

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:05 AM neonira Arinoem <neonira at gmail.com> wrote: > 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? > Validation isn't the only thing we need to do wrt package names. we also need to

On 2019-08-09 14:27, neonira Arinoem wrote: > I do not follow you Gabriel. Package name must not use digit numbers. > Tarbal will use them, taken from the DESCRIPTION file, version field. > > That's why I consider the weird case name you presented as irrelevant, > and > not to be considered. ggplot2 ? Numbers are allowed in package names right now. > Le ven. 9 ao?t

Martin, Thank you for discussing this amongst R-core and for detailing the R-core discussion here. Some specific examples where having underscores available would have been useful. 1. My primerTree package (2013) was originally primer_tree, but I had to change the name to camelCase to comply with the check requirements. Using camelCase in the package name makes reading code jarring, as the

Hi group, I try to write a frame to a table (RODBC). I use colnames(temp6) <- c("ind_id","ser_id","period_id","year","calc","mean") sqlSave(channel, temp6, tablename = "series_indices_test",append= TRUE, rownames=FALSE, verbose = FALSE, test = FALSE, nastring = -999999, fast = FALSE) This is giving me an error: Error in

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.2.22a Severity: normal Thanks to the upgrade to Postfix 2.1 and deploying a newer logcheck ruleset on a busier server I've found a bunch more rules for Postfix. I've attached new rules files and patches are inline. The following patch is for violations.ignore.d: --- logcheck-postfix.orig 2004-06-21 20:11:14.000000000 +0100 +++ logcheck-postfix

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.2.39 Severity: normal I use dhcp3-server and a dhcp client which is Sony HDD video recorder CoCoon. The client not return client host name. In this case, dhcpd server assumed the client host name is (none). Therefor dhcpd output log described below. > Jan 7 10:49:24 on-o dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 08:00:46:33:55:77 ((none)) via eth0 > Jan 7 10:49:25

Package: logcheck Version: 1.2.23 Severity: normal Hello, I have: # /bin/cat ignore.d.server/cron ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ crontab\[[0-9]+\]: \([[:alnum:]-]+\) LIST \([[:alnum:]-]+\)$ ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ crontab\[[0-9]+\]: \([[:alnum:]-]+\) REPLACE \([[:alnum:]-]+\)$ and: # /bin/cat ignore.d.paranoid/cron ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+

On 09/08/2019 4:37 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote: > Duncan, > > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:17 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com > <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 09/08/2019 2:41 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote: > > Note that this proposal would make mypackage_2.3.1 a valid > *package name*, > > whose

Full_Name: David Whiting Version: 2.1.0 Under development (unstable) OS: linux Submission from: (NULL) (82.39.106.169) I have just upgraded from a previous version (2.0.0?) and found some of my code that used okay to run now gives an error. The function being called is sqlSave(). I am pretty sure (but not 100% certain) that the data frame I am trying to save has not changed. I am 100% sure that

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.2.23 Severity: minor Hi, a couple of minor corrections to the dhcp rule sets: First of all, the hostname matching parts need to include the "._-" signs (maybe . is not needed but it might be). Then when using failover, log lines of type DHCPDISCOVER and DHCPREQUEST may be entailed by the string ": load balance to peer <somestring>".

I upgraded to 1.2.28, same results. Here are the rules I added. ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ perdition\[[0-9]+\]: Connect: ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ pure-ftpd: [^[:space:]]+ \[NOTICE\] ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ pure-ftpd: [^[:space:]]+ \[INFO\] ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ exact\[[0-9]+\]: ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ slapd\[[0-9]+\]: ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11}

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I think I found a mistake in the postfix file in /etc/logcheck/ignore.d.server. There is one equal sign to much in this line: ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ postfix/smtpd\[[0-9]+\]: [[:alnum:]]+: client=[^[:space:]]+, sasl_method=[[:alnum:]]+, sasl_username==[-_.@[:alnum:]]+$ I think it should be: ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.2.42 Severity: normal Tags: patch Index: postfix =================================================================== --- postfix (revision 1097) +++ postfix (working copy) @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ # Postfix < 2.1 ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ postfix/smtp\[[0-9]+\]: connect to [^[:space:]]+: server dropped connection without sending the initial greeting

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.2.32 Severity: normal Tags: patch The fix for 283331 exposed a bug in the dnsmasq rules. The rule was looking for DHCPINFO, but the actual message is DHCPINFORM. Prior to the 283331 fix, the old rule worked, because the "[()[:alnum:]]+" part of the rule matched the "RM" at the end of DHCPINFORM. -- System Information: Debian Release: