[R-pkg-devel] CRAN student assistants
Hello, Since this has turned into a worldwide code review, I will briefly address that, then reiterate the point of the original message. I am working on an initial release of a package. It reveals information to a user, sometimes in a print method-y way, sometimes in more of a verbose / debugging way that is under control of a documented option, which defaults to "off" or "quiet". For now, I have chosen to send all of this output through a single functions that, yes, uses cat(). I went this direction for an initial release to keep the package simple and accumulate some user experience. If the "debugging mode" proves to be useful, I will rework it, possibly using UI functionality that I believe our group might release in the future. Rest assured, I understand cat() vs message() and the various tradeoffs. I made mine and it is my impression that package maintainers have this level of freedom. The real point is: the currenrt CRAN submission process is designed for one-way communication and there's no guarantee of continuity of reviewer. If this type of implementation review is going to happen, it seems that many aspects of the process would need to change, to make sure these new standards are applied consistently to every submission and that existing package are brought up to current standards. To clarify something for Joris, I am not aware of any special channel of communication or influence between CRAN and the R Foundation (of which I am also a member). I think this is an aspect of CRAN vs R Foundation (vs R Core even) that is unclear to many. These entities operate quite independently, except for the fact that specific people belong to more than one. So RF members interact with CRAN the same way as any other of member of the community. -- Jenny
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:43 AM Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry first sentence should read I agree that `message()` is ideally preferred, precisely because of the reasons Martin stated, it is easily controlled by the user. On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 9:41 AM Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> wrote:
I agree that `message()` is in an ideally preferred, precisely because of the reasons Martin stated, it is easily controlled by the user. Unfortunately, in the real world, the windows R gui console and RStudio (which copied behavior) color messages, and anything on stderr in fact, in red, which confuses most users who are trained to treat messages in red as errors. This also makes using colored output (where available) more challenging when using `message()`. You either have to accept the text as red, or unconditionally change the text color to black or similar, which can then be unreadable if the user is using a dark color theme. Jenny is an experienced package developer. She knew this tradeoff and the use of `cat()` in gargle was deliberate choice in an imperfect world. She did not make this decision out of ignorance of a better way. However there is no way for Jenny or any other package developers to have a dialog during a CRAN submission, the communication is only in one direction, if she resubmits explaining her rationale for the choice she may not even have the same reviewer the next time. Bioconductor seems to have a much better review process for submissions, with real dialog between the reviewer and package author, perhaps CRAN can learn from that process and improve the submission experience in the future. Jim On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 7:41 AM Martin Morgan <mtmorgan.bioc at gmail.com>
wrote:
message() / warning() / stop() write to stderr whereas print() / cat()
write (by default) to stdout. Even without being able to suppress messages, it is well-established practice (the story is that this is the reason why 'stderr' was introduced into unix, https://www.jstorimer.com/blogs/workingwithcode/7766119-when-to-use-stderr-instead-of-stdout ) to separate diagnostic messages from program output. I agree that gargle (in particular, and packages in general, given the theme of this mailing list) would be a better package if it used message() where it now uses cat().
Martin ?On 5/15/19, 5:04 AM, "R-package-devel on behalf of Joris Meys" <
r-package-devel-bounces at r-project.org on behalf of Joris.Meys at ugent.be> wrote:
2) Where cat() is used in gargle, message() is a better option for
the
following reason:
> myfun <- function(){cat("Yes");message("No")}
> suppressMessages(myfun())
Yes
______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel