Pull Request follow-up for #30: Reset radom seed

[mcaceresb]

No description provided.

[mcaceresb]

@jonathandroth I reset the random seed here after the function's run, which was an easy mod. I can also not set the random seed internally and instead modify the code to use something like halton sequences? I wonder if CRAN will complain about a function fiddling with the global environment at all.

[jonathandroth]

In the past i have had an argument to the function `seed =0` and done set.seed(seed). I think I did this in the staggered package, which they approved. But maybe I just got lucky that they didn't notice it

…

On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 8:04 AM Mauricio Caceres Bravo < ***@***.***> wrote: @jonathandroth <https://github.com/jonathandroth> I reset the random seed here after the function's run, which was an easy mod. I can also not set the random seed internally and instead modify the code to use something like halton sequences? I wonder if CRAN will complain about a function fiddling with the global environment at all. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#59 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE6EXFFHBC2JPLNBXZP3TILZIQJDNAVCNFSM6AAAAABJVXRVKSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCOBSGYZDCNZZG4> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[mcaceresb]

@jonathandroth I'm not sure it's luck because the same thing happens in one function here that they also didn't flag. So I think if we put it in an argument they won't complain.

However, if the argument is not user-accessible then it has the same effect, we're just hiding it from them and going against their best practices. I guess I could make the seed user-accessible and pass it around throughout?

[jonathandroth]

If it's not a lot of work to allow the user to set it, then sure. If it is, let's just make it an argument internally

…

On Fri, Jun 21, 2024, 11:16 AM Mauricio Caceres Bravo < ***@***.***> wrote: @jonathandroth <https://github.com/jonathandroth> I'm not sure it's luck because the same thing happens in one function here that they also didn't flag. So I think if we put it in an argument they won't complain. However, if the argument is not user-accessible then it has the same effect, we're just hiding it from them and going against their best practices. I guess I could make the seed user-accessible and pass it around throughout? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#59 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE6EXFHENGHXAX4B2QJMN53ZIQ7TZAVCNFSM6AAAAABJVXRVKSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCOBSHE2DMNJVGA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[mcaceresb]

@jonathandroth I made the seed user-accessible. I see the PR branch is passing all checks so if you're good I'll merge to main and reply in #42

[jonathandroth]

Sounds good to me, thanks!