Think about `etn::check_value()`

[damianooldoni]

Based on comment of @PietrH (#405 (comment))

@PietrH improved check_value() in {etn}: it could be nice to use the same function. Maybe placing the function somewhere else out of {etn} and {camtraptor} instead of copy-pasting from each other?

Notice that the etn version of this function now uses {cli} instead of {assertthat}, see PR inbo/etn#603. So, this issue is blocked by #375.

[PietrH]

I could quite easily adapt etn::check_value() to make {cli} an optional dependency (and use sprintf() instead). But indeed I'm not suggesting you make {camtraptor} depend on {etn}. Maybe placing the function in it's own package is perhaps the most elegant solution.

I wonder if there is more opportunities for shared code between the two packages, or between {camtrapdp} and {etn} around EML or DwC parsing or writing.

[damianooldoni]

Interesting. Something to discuss with @peterdesmet and @sannegovaert as well.

[damianooldoni]

Maybe you can check that no cli-based package already exists with this well defined scope?
And if no package exists, maybe thinking about a good name for such a R package?