On 31 janv. 2018, at 09:08, Gabriel Becker <gmbec...@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> it *actively discourages* the bits it doesn't directly support. It may be discouraging to include Rd syntax in roxygen docs but only because the LaTeX-like syntax of Rd is burdensome, not because of roxygen. It is still handy to have inlined Rd as a backup and we do use it for the cases where we need finer grained control. I agree with your sentiment that roxygen encourages writing of documentation for time-constrained users. I'll add that the major problem of documentation is not fancy formatting but the content getting out of sync with the codebase. Having documentation sitting next to the code is the preferred antidote to doc rot, e.g. docstrings in lisp languages, Julia and Python, the Linux kernel-doc system, doxygen, javadoc, ... It is true that R CMD check extensive checks help a lot as well in this regard though only for things that can be checked automatically. Best, Lionel ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
