I read
For printing \dontrun should be a no-op.
to mean that it should produce no output, but I suspect you meant you
wanted it to pass its argument through verbatim.
If we were continuing with the Rdconv.pm I would be suggesting adding
some markup for that job (e.g. \verbdontrun), but as we are
transitioning to another system adding anything right now is a lot of
extra work.
To change Rdconv.pm for latex, the line is (in code2latex, l.2639 in
R-devel)
$text = replace_addnl_command($text, "dontrun",
"## Not run: ", "## End(Not run)");
and AFAICS it would need to be
$text = undefine_command($text, "dontrun");
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Terry Therneau wrote:
You've answered my question 2 about why the manual was in odd order
R CMD check was more of a check of the latex version of the files, not
the final manual.
I was looking at the result of R CMD check, and it was in random order
(perhaps file date?), not just a different collation choice. Very odd.
I will cease worrying about what I might have "done wrong".
I omitted the important version information: R version 2.7.1 (2008-06-23)
on Linux.
Looking more closely, it all depends how Perl lists directories: that
could be in almost any order but I am seeing collated orders.
My other question was apparently unclear.
looking at the pdf output (because it is nicest to read)
I refer to it as "printed" because that's what I very often do for any
substantial chunk of reading (>2 pages). Easier on my eyes.
Talking only about the example section
The question is what the result of \dontrun should be when producing a
product that is meant to be read by a human, and I will assume that this is
the primary target of the latex process. I oject to the comment that it adds.
I would much prefer that it not add extraneous comments to my examples. I
do want the items bracketed by \dontrun to appear -- if I didn't think the
lines were useful I wouldn't have put them there. Perhaps because I like
printed versions I like examples to show not just legal input, but give
feedback on what the code does; thus make it to the extent possible look
like a shapshot of a session and not just a set of legal input. It is most
often output that I will have bracketed. (wrt Gabor's comment, I would rather
not turn it into a comment block; it would not look at all like that on
the screen).
There will be two levels to the response: argue that I really shouldn't
want to do this, and suggestions on how or how not to accomplish it. Wrt
the first -- I need to consider this more. You may convince me. Wrt th
second:
I don't know perl, but looked at Rdconv.pm. It looks like changing the line
to $text= undefine_command($text, "dontrun") would do what I want; but that's
a guess, and it would only change the local behavior
I'll have to pull down R-devel to understand the tools::: comment.
Yes, verbatim sections in Tex are subtle.
Thanks for the input.
--
Brian D. Ripley, rip...@stats.ox.ac.uk
Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
