I get a warning about "1 warning message" using R CMD check on the
survival library. It comes from the code snippet:
if (library(cmprsk, logical.return=TRUE)) {
# further test of competing risks from survfit
.
.
}
This is a very useful additional test when I'm checking any changes to
the affected code, so I like having this in my test suite even though it
doesn't run automatically.
This argues for a change in library -- when the user sets logical.return
=T they don't need a warning message too. I submit this to the R core
and their collective wisdom.
I admit that mine is an unusual case, and for now I'll turn if off with
options(warn=-1)
Terry T.
Suppressing a warning from library()
4 messages · Peter Dalgaard, Brian Ripley, Terry Therneau
Terry Therneau wrote:
I get a warning about "1 warning message" using R CMD check on the
survival library. It comes from the code snippet:
if (library(cmprsk, logical.return=TRUE)) {
# further test of competing risks from survfit
.
.
}
This is a very useful additional test when I'm checking any changes to
the affected code, so I like having this in my test suite even though it
doesn't run automatically.
This argues for a change in library -- when the user sets logical.return
=T they don't need a warning message too. I submit this to the R core
and their collective wisdom.
I admit that mine is an unusual case, and for now I'll turn if off with
options(warn=-1)
Probably, wrapping in suppressWarnings() is better. -p
O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard ?ster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Terry Therneau wrote:
I get a warning about "1 warning message" using R CMD check on the
survival library. It comes from the code snippet:
if (library(cmprsk, logical.return=TRUE)) {
# further test of competing risks from survfit
.
.
}
This is a very useful additional test when I'm checking any changes to
the affected code, so I like having this in my test suite even though it
doesn't run automatically.
This argues for a change in library -- when the user sets logical.return
=T they don't need a warning message too.
It was the considered opinion that in general they do. You can always use suppressWarnings() in your code if you don't, or you can pre-check that the package is available via lower-level functions such as .packages and .find.package.
I submit this to the R core and their collective wisdom. I admit that mine is an unusual case, and for now I'll turn if off with options(warn=-1) Terry T.
______________________________________________ R-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Brian D. Ripley, ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595
The suppressWarnings construct looks like a good idea; I was not aware of it's existence. Thanks for the feedback. Terry T.