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
How many of the underlying functions should we expose to the user? That is, this package really only has one function that a user will likely care about: datapie_shiny(). But if you look at the documentation, there are a bunch of other (very crafty) functions. However, if we want to encourage use of this package, it may be worth simplifying the R interface by just focusing in on a single datapie_shiny function (and possibly renaming the function to just datapie to help enforce its singular utility). This would also have the benefit of reducing conflicts between other packages (which is generally a good thing). That said, I think internal documentation of functions is still very worth it (for development sanity). Anyhoo, just some thoughts.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I've been documenting my functions and add the @export tag to them if I
judge them to be of possible interest to the user, and of course only
functions set up to have inputs and outputs that make sense.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 1:01 PM Colin Smith ***@***.***> wrote:
From @wetlandscapes <https://github.com/wetlandscapes> email:
*How many of the underlying functions should we expose to the user? That
is, this package really only has one function that a user will likely care
about: datapie_shiny(). But if you look at the documentation, there are a
bunch of other (very crafty) functions. However, if we want to encourage
use of this package, it may be worth simplifying the R interface by just
focusing in on a single datapie_shiny function (and possibly renaming the
function to just datapie to help enforce its singular utility). This would
also have the benefit of reducing conflicts between other packages (which
is generally a good thing). That said, I think internal documentation of
functions is still very worth it (for development sanity). Anyhoo, just
some thoughts.*
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#87?email_source=notifications&email_token=AKAZD5XPVP67TVKXTHJ55JLQQMX7VA5CNFSM4JFGU2R2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFUVEXG43VMWVGG33NNVSW45C7NFSM4HUOLA7Q>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKAZD5UCOZFNPMPJ7VS3UDTQQMX7VANCNFSM4JFGU2RQ>
.
From @wetlandscapes email:
How many of the underlying functions should we expose to the user? That is, this package really only has one function that a user will likely care about: datapie_shiny(). But if you look at the documentation, there are a bunch of other (very crafty) functions. However, if we want to encourage use of this package, it may be worth simplifying the R interface by just focusing in on a single
datapie_shiny
function (and possibly renaming the function to justdatapie
to help enforce its singular utility). This would also have the benefit of reducing conflicts between other packages (which is generally a good thing). That said, I think internal documentation of functions is still very worth it (for development sanity). Anyhoo, just some thoughts.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: