streamline table names in ds.table

[rapus95]

[1] "TABLE.STUDY.1_row.props"              
[2] "TABLE.STUDY.1_col.props"              
[3] "TABLE.STUDY.2_row.props"              
[4] "TABLE.STUDY.2_col.props"              
[5] "TABLES.COMBINED_all.sources_row.props"
[6] "TABLES.COMBINED_all.sources_col.props"
[7] "TABLE_STUDY.1_counts"                 
[8] "TABLE_STUDY.2_counts"                 
[9] "TABLES.COMBINED_all.sources_counts"  

there are like 3 different naming styles in here: TABLE., TABLES. and TABLE_
could those be streamlined and reordered to the following? Because that would be a) better grouping and b) allow for a more streamlined approach when using them programmatically

[1] "TABLE.STUDY1.row.props"              
[2] "TABLE.STUDY1.col.props"              
[3] "TABLE.STUDY1.counts"                 
[4] "TABLE.STUDY2.row.props"              
[5] "TABLE.STUDY2.col.props"              
[6] "TABLE.STUDY2.counts"                 
[7] "TABLE.COMBINED.row.props"
[8] "TABLE.COMBINED.col.props"
[9] "TABLE.COMBINED.counts"  

Edit: One could even consider to switch the order of props and row/col which would make the structure even cleaner ->

[1] "TABLE.STUDY1.props.row"              
[2] "TABLE.STUDY1.props.col"              
[3] "TABLE.STUDY1.counts"                 
[4] "TABLE.STUDY2.props.row"              
[5] "TABLE.STUDY2.props.col"              
[6] "TABLE.STUDY2.counts"                 
[7] "TABLE.COMBINED.row.props"
[8] "TABLE.COMBINED.col.props"
[9] "TABLE.COMBINED.counts"  

[anarchodoc]

Hi,

I think there's an error in the last comment. Row's 8 and 9 should be as here:

[1] "TABLE.STUDY1.props.row"              
[2] "TABLE.STUDY1.props.col"              
[3] "TABLE.STUDY1.counts"                 
[4] "TABLE.STUDY2.props.row"              
[5] "TABLE.STUDY2.props.col"              
[6] "TABLE.STUDY2.counts"                 
[7] "TABLE.COMBINED.props.row"
[8] "TABLE.COMBINED.props.col"
[9] "TABLE.COMBINED.counts"  

The props.row and props.col were the other way around.

[StuartWheater]

We have been trying to maintain backward compatibility of versions, even with undesirable features.
But we will consider this proposal.

Stuart

[rapus95]

given that table was just introduced as a new function I wonder if this could just be made an optional keyword argument streamline=true which at some point after a depreciation could just change the default value.