-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
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
Inequality direction in wrapper functions #148
Comments
Hello, @hwborchers. In theory, I would like
In the interim, perhaps the simplest thing is to update the help to reference |
I am going to work on this in the devel branch of my fork. |
I agree with @aadler. In the long run, we should implement all inequality constraints with the same @aadler how far did you manage to go on your fork on this issue? For the deprecation process, we could implement that with lifecycle. |
As I am planning a release to CRAN next week, we also need to decide if step 1 of the deprecation process should appear in this release. |
I am a contributor to the {nloptr} package. I contributed the small 'wrapper' functions --like 'lbfgs', 'auglag', or 'slsqp', etc. - that hopefully made it easier for casual users of the package to call basic routines without the need to understand the API of the main function 'nloptr()'.
I have a concern or request:
For instance, in the 'slsqp' function I interpreted the inequality constraints as
hin(x) >= 0
while Jelmer Ypma thoughthin(x) <= 0
would be more appropriate in the context of the package. Therefore, he added a messageThis is correct but becomes confusing or annoying when calling this function one or several times. Can we change this behavior, either by removing the message or by reversing the inequality sign?
Reversing the sign will, of course, change the function behavior and will probably lead to "dependency problems". I have just gone through this process, see https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2023-November/478539.html, and unfortunately, the added message is not an official "deprecated" warning.
I don't mind if you prefer to leave things as they are. In this case, to not confuse the users too much it would be appropriate to remove the message. (I have not checked whether similar messages appear in other wrappers.) Perhaps the direction of the inequality constraint could be emphasized more clearly on the corresponding help pages.
Hans Werner
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: