Andrew Johnson
Andrew Johnson
I can update the signatures and/or doc, just need to decide what the signatures should be
I think there's definitely a need for a backend-agnostic package for Stan-related utilities. I'd also be fairly invested in this since it would simplify a bunch of things I want...
I don't think we should do it `rstan` itself, otherwise it might end up stopping users from updating their syntax (if they don't receive any warnings or errors)
@jgabry based on your experiences with CRAN, if we update `stanc` to properly emit a warning during package installation for deprecated syntax (causing `R CMD CHECK` failures for downstream packages),...
> if we update stanc to properly emit a warning during package installation for deprecated syntax And to clarify that I was thinking this would only be added after 2.31...
Would this be controllable by a flag/option? CRAN rejects packages if the source has pragmas which suppress warnings
> > Would this be controllable by a flag/option? CRAN rejects packages if the source has pragmas which suppress warnings > > Of course they do 🙃 Does it not...
But also not a blocker, since it's trivial to add a find-and-replace for the pragma to the rstantools config
> We could add a flag, but if rstantools is already massaging the generated C++ it might make the most sense for the change to live there Sounds good to...
> With #1353 this may be obsolete by the next release but I don't see any harm in marking it supported if it is Oh neat, that will be really...