Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rename <epidist> with <epiparameter> #360

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Aug 12, 2024
Merged

Rename <epidist> with <epiparameter> #360

merged 6 commits into from
Aug 12, 2024

Conversation

joshwlambert
Copy link
Member

Breaking changes

This PR addresses #325 by renaming the main class in {epiparameter} from <epidist> to <epiparameter>. This is due to potential conflict or confusion with the {epidist} R package.

Function names that previously used epidist now use epiparameter (for exceptions see below). These include: epiparameter_db(), epiparameter(), as_epiparameter(), etc. The other class used in {epiparameter}, <multi_epidist> has also been renamed to <multi_epiparameter>.

Naming the class after the package also follows the idiomatic convention of other R packages, e.g. {incidence} and <incidence>, {epicontacts} and <epicontacts>.

The other change made in this PR is to shorten the names of the create_*() and .clean_*() functions by removing epidist from the name. If there is a conflict with other functions with the same name from another package then the functions can be explicitly namespaced (epiparameter::create_uncertainty()).

Copy link
Member

@jamesmbaazam jamesmbaazam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This renaming exercise looks good to me. My only concern is that this package might already have a good number of users who will be affected by this change without prior warning.

A better approach would be to gradually deprecate the functions. I'm sure you have good reasons for going this route but I just thought to bring it up for discussion.

@joshwlambert
Copy link
Member Author

@jamesmbaazam I appreciate this being raised. In general for breaking changes on packages that are < v1.0.0 and are not on CRAN I've made breaking changes without a gradual deprecation process. I always record any breaking changes in the NEWS.md file.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants