On Friday, 4 November 2016, Martin Maechler <maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
> >>>>> Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org <javascript:;>> > >>>>> on Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:36:52 -0500 writes: > > > On 4 November 2016 at 16:24, Martin Maechler wrote: | My > > proposed name '--no-stop-on-error' was a quick shot; if | > > somebody has a more concise or better "English style" > > wording | (which is somewhat compatible with all the other > > options you see | from 'R CMD check --help'), | please > > speak up. > > > Why not keep it simple? The similar feature this most > > resembles is 'make -k' and its help page has > > > -k, --keep-going > > > Continue as much as possible after an > > error. While the target that failed, and those that > > depend on it, cannot be remade, the other dependencies of > > these targets can be processed all the same. > > Yes, that would be quite a bit simpler and nice in my view. > One may think it to be too vague, Mmn, I would agree on vagueness (and it breaks the pattern set by other flags of human-readability). Deep familiarity with make is probably not something we should ask of everyone who needs to test a package, too. I quite like stop-on-error=true (exactly the same as the previous suggestion but shaves off some characters by inverting the Boolean) notably from Brian Pedersen's mentioning that the examples are > already continued in any case if they lead to an error. > > Other opinions? > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org <javascript:;> mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
