Open etiennebacher opened 4 months ago
I agree. There’s even an unexpected namespace collision with ggplot. It should t be a problem except for the fact that ggplot is a bit aggressive with its takeover.
I am opposed to repetitive prefixing for example writing geos::geos is redundant. st is useful in that it mimics PostGIS and is indicative of a spatial transformation.
I haven’t had time to revisit this R package but it was slated for archival today if I didn’t do anything. If you have any suggestions to improve the naming conventions, please let me know!
At minimum, the Geom struct needs to be renamed.
st_ is useful in that it mimics PostGIS
I had no clue about that.
I am opposed to repetitive prefixing for example writing geos::geos_ is redundant
True, but having a common prefix would remove the need to write <pkg>::
. If you'd rather prefix everything with rsgeo::
then I guess you don't need to rename anything since there won't be collisions?
I don't really use this package (I just like following the development of Rust-based packages) so feel free to dismiss this comment, it just came to me when I saw the new
geom_line
in the NEWS of 0.1.7.I see that you have some functions that would conflict with
ggplot2
, e.g.geom_line()
,geom_polygon()
. I like the API ofsf
that has all its functions starting withsf_
,st_
orgdal_
, it makes it easy to discover functions and works well with autocomplete. Maybe you could take advantage of the fact your package is relatively young to add a prefixrsg_
to most functions?On the other hand, one could say that you could replace the
rsg_
prefix byrsgeo::
.