1. I know there is not such a thing; that why I said "mimic" and "the
same place" ("***/R/bin" instead of "***/R/R-x.x.x/bin").2. Yes, I never mess with the PATH variable under *nix, because R is installed to /usr/local/bin/ (or /usr/bin/) *by default*, which is already in the PATH variable. Otherwise extra efforts will be required to run R as a single letter R -- this is what I wish we were able to do under Windows. Regards, Yihui -- Yihui Xie <xieyi...@gmail.com> Phone: 515-294-2465 Web: http://yihui.name Department of Statistics, Iowa State University 2215 Snedecor Hall, Ames, IA On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Simon Urbanek <simon.urba...@r-project.org> wrote: > On May 4, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Yihui Xie wrote: > >> My suggestion was to mimic *nix systems: put the executable binaries in the >> same place *by default* (e.g. /usr/bin/ or /usr/local/bin). > > Except that there is not such thing on Windows! The closest to that is the > "system" folder which is off limits for applications. > > >> Why isn't the default bin path for R under *nix something like >> /usr/bin/R-2.13.0/? > > It is on some unices (and most system-wide installations in practice) - but > that's beside the point. Unix has a well-defined FHS so regardless where you > install R you can always put a symlink into /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin. > Windows has no such conventions so Gabor's solution is pretty much what you > claim to want (and note that in unix you're exactly running a batch script > with its rhome embedded to start R!). Even on unix you don't mess with PATH > to select the R version to use. > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
