osrmRoute argument order

[wcjochem]

When I was testing this package, I noticed that the order of the arguments for osrmRoute is different from osrmTable. Is there a reason for this?

This seems like a minor design question, but I was confused that there were 3 potential inputs. Could you consider having just src and dst as inputs, with src always required and dst be optional (or, if not supplied set it to be src)

For example:

osrmTable <- function(src, dst = src, exclude = NULL ...)
{
	# check inputs
	if(missing(src){ stop() }
}

[rCarto]

fixed in faf8b31
osrmRoute() and osrmTable() arguments are now aligned.
I'll keep the loc arg for backward compatibility and ease of use.