Packages and Libraries (was: Re: lme4 "package" etc ..)
But I don't see a problem with "package("package")", though I'm sure
I'm missing something.
It really would end this constant confusion and save various folks
approx 15 minutes/week in knee-jerk responses, eh?
best,
-tony
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:09:42 +0100, Martin Maechler
<maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
"tony" == A J Rossini <blindglobe@gmail.com>
on Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:33:23 +0100 writes:
tony> For OBVIOUS reasons, is there any chance that we could introduce
tony> "package()" and deprecate "library()"?
This idea is not new {as you must surely have guessed}. In fact,
there's a much longer standing proposition of "usePackage()"
(IIRC, or "use.package()" ?). However, we (R-core) always had
wanted to also provide a ``proper'' class named "package"
along with this, but for several reasons didn't get around to it.. yet.
-- I've diverted to R-devel now that we are really talking about
desired future behavior of R
tony> (well, I'll also ask if we could deprecate "=" for assignment, but
tony> that's hopeless).
:-)
tony> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:49:39 +0100, Martin Maechler
tony> <maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
>> >>>>> "Pavel" == Pavel Khomski <pkhomski@wiwi.uni-bielefeld.de> >> >>>>> on Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:20:03 +0100 writes:
>>
Pavel> this is a question, how can i specify the random part Pavel> in the GLMM-call (of the lme4 library) for compound Pavel> matrices just in the the same way as they defined in Pavel> the lme-Call (of the nlme library).
>> >> ``twice in such a short paragraph -- yikes !!'' ... I'm getting >> convulsive... >> >> There is NO lme4 library nor an nlme one ! >> There's the lme4 *PACKAGE* and the nlme *PACKAGE* -- please -- >> >> ....................
best, -tony "Commit early,commit often, and commit in a repository from which we can easily roll-back your mistakes" (AJR, 4Jan05). A.J. Rossini blindglobe@gmail.com