You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Loads a module bar that’s defined inside the package foo.
Open questions
What happens when users say library(foo) (or indeed loadNamespace("foo"))? Is there some boilerplate code inside the package that (a) forbids this, (b) does nothing or (c) provides an alternative way of interacting with the modules nested under ‘foo’?
How does this work with the existing R package infrastructure (testing, checking, vignette building, static analysis/‘codetools’)?
(Why) is this desirable? (In particular: people like packages because of the convenience afforded by the infrastructure around packages, but what part of this are we giving up by having the code inside the package hidden away in submodules?)
How ergonomic is this? — Both for the users of the package as well as the developers of it?
Requirements
R packages don’t allow nested code, so the actual implementation needs to go under inst
Something (box?) needs to provide utilities to generate the package skeleton infrastructure
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Please describe your feature request
Can the following ever work?
Loads a module
bar
that’s defined inside the packagefoo
.Open questions
What happens when users say
library(foo)
(or indeedloadNamespace("foo")
)? Is there some boilerplate code inside the package that (a) forbids this, (b) does nothing or (c) provides an alternative way of interacting with the modules nested under ‘foo’?How does this work with the existing R package infrastructure (testing, checking, vignette building, static analysis/‘codetools’)?
(Why) is this desirable? (In particular: people like packages because of the convenience afforded by the infrastructure around packages, but what part of this are we giving up by having the code inside the package hidden away in submodules?)
How ergonomic is this? — Both for the users of the package as well as the developers of it?
Requirements
inst
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: