On 13/01/2010 6:15 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
I'm having trouble getting correct help output in some circumstances for a package I've created. Though this is not an issue with the current R, I would like my package to work with previous ones as well.I'm looking for suggestions about how I could rework my .Rd file so that it will work with prior R's. In particular, R 2.7 is in the latest stable release of Debian, so I'd like to solve the problem for 2.7. The .Rd file is for a function and has an arguments section like this \arguments{ \item{formula}{ A formula giving the vectors containing ## skipped covariates. } ## skipped \item{stepdenominator}{See \code{stepnumerator} just above.}\item{do.what}{\describe{\item{1}{By default, calculates a maximimum likelihood. To evaluate a single likelihood, set all parameters to fixed. } \item{0}{Count number of paths and related statistics without evaluating the likelihood.} \item{-1}{Get detailed counts (but no likelihoods) associated with each case. The return value is a matrix.} \item{10}{Use the model to generate a random path for each case. returning a \code{data.frame} with simulated observed states and times and all other data as observed.} }} \item{testing}{This argument is only for use by developers. Set it ## etc This comes out fine in a pdf, but ?mspath (the function) produces, in part, <quote> stepdenominator: See 'stepnumerator' just above. 1 By default, calculates a maximimum likelihood. To evaluate asingle likelihood, set all parameters to fixed.0 Count number of paths and related statistics without evaluating the likelihood. </quote> in R 2.7. The "do.what" header has vanished. In R 2.10 it's fine. Is there an error in my documentation format? Even if not, is there some change I could make that would get R 2.7 to work better?
I would avoid nesting the \describe within \arguments. Both basically use the same formatting code, and 2.7 probably doesn't support nesting properly. There was no real parser there, just a fallible pattern matching approach.
A better solution is to say your package requires a recent version of R, but maybe that's not feasible for you.
Duncan Murdoch
The R change log doesn't show anything obviously related to this, though it has several references to unspecified fixes to the documentation system. I also tried looking at the bug tracker, but couldn't find anything--in fact I had trouble identifying bugs in the documentation system as opposed to bugs in the documentation. Thanks. Ross Boylan ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
