Dear Gregory, Paul, and Jan, I recall proposing something like this (that is, a classification of available functions) some time ago, but it never got off the ground. The advantage of using keywords is that package authors would classify their own functions, but I don't think that the current set of keywords is adequate. It would be particularly useful to work out a hierarchical or perhaps hyper-linked classification (without restricting particular functions to just one terminal node). Regards, John
At 09:29 PM 11/24/2003 -0500, Warnes, Gregory R wrote:
How about we use the information already stored in \keyword{}?
It should be straighforward to allow navigating among the \keyword
hirearchy.
-G
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Murrell
To: Jan de Leeuw
Cc: Warnes, Gregory R; 'R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch'
Sent: 11/24/03 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Rd] Proposal: 'global' package refactoring
Hi
I have wanted to figure out a way to do something along these lines for
the many, widely-scattered plotting functions. Something that would be
less invasive (and less useful, but a valid step in the right
direction), is simply a "directory" for different functional groups. A
list of function names, plus descriptions of what they do, plus a
pointer to the package they are in would I think be really useful. A
lot of work to create and maintain, but really useful. For example, the
web pages focused on "spatial projects"
(http://sal.agecon.uiuc.edu/csiss/Rgeo/index.html) has summaries of all
spatially related packages.
The coordination of the DBMS stuff
(http://developer.r-project.org/db/index.html) is another example of
something similar.
Then of course there is the R GUIs pages
(http://www.sciviews.org/_rgui/)
Paul
Jan de Leeuw wrote:
This is a good idea, and it would be great to have these refactored meta packages. But it actually implies having a group similar to R core that does code review of existing packages. For example, what happens if a function seems to work but is programmed horribly inefficiently ? What happens if something exists on both the R and C levels ? What happens with packages that rely on private versions of BLAS ? Suppose two packages provide the same functionality, how does one choose ? And can this be done without coding conventions ? Who is in charge ? On Nov 24, 2003, at 14:12, Warnes, Gregory R wrote:
Looking over the contents of various packages, including my own, it is clear that lots of things end up 'hidden away' in packages where they don't belong. My gregmisc package is a particularly egregious example, containing something from almost every functional category. I propose that from time to time the R community go through the complete set of packages and 'refactor' the functions and data sets into packages
that have clearly defined goals. This should make it easier to ensure that new functions get placed into a location where users can easily find
them,
reduce the amount of re-implementation/duplication existing functionality, and assist in ensuring interoperability. It would be worthwhile, for instance, to pull all of the functions related to contrasts for generalized linear models into a common location, instead of having them spread between base, Hmisc, MASS, gregmisc, etc. Similarly, it would be helpful to pull together all of the genetics-computations
into a single location. I recognize that not all package maintainers would be willing to participate and that not all functions could be easily categorized, but I believe
that this effort would yield significant benefit and is compatible with the goal of R-core to streamline the base packages. To put my money where my mouth is, I'll volunteer to organize a group
effort to do such a refactoring in conjunction with the userR! 2004 or the
next
DSC, whichever folks agree is better for this purpose.
Gregory R. Warnes, Ph.D.
Senior Coordinator
Groton Non-Clinical Statistics
Pfizer Global Research and Development
<<Warnes, Gregory R.vcf>>
LEGAL NOTICE\ Unless expressly stated otherwise, this
messag...{{dropped}}
______________________________________________ R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
=== Jan de Leeuw; Professor and Chair, UCLA Department of Statistics; Editor: Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Journal of Statistical
Software
US mail: 8130 Math Sciences Bldg, Box 951554, Los Angeles, CA
90095-1554
phone (310)-825-9550; fax (310)-206-5658; email:
deleeuw@stat.ucla.edu
homepage: http://gifi.stat.ucla.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
No matter where you go, there you are. --- Buckaroo Banzai
http://gifi.stat.ucla.edu/sounds/nomatter.au
______________________________________________ R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
-- Dr Paul Murrell Department of Statistics The University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland New Zealand 64 9 3737599 x85392 paul@stat.auckland.ac.nz http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~paul/ LEGAL NOTICE\ Unless expressly stated otherwise, this messag...{{dropped}}
______________________________________________ R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
----------------------------------------------------- John Fox Department of Sociology McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4M4 email: jfox@mcmaster.ca phone: 905-525-9140x23604 web: www.socsci.mcmaster.ca/jfox