On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:30 PM Gábor Csárdi <csardi.ga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:21 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I think I found the bug. The tools::checkRd function only processes > > \Sexpr's with "stage=render". I think the author (who might have been > > me, I forget) assumed that would imply all the earlier stages as well, > > but apparently it doesn't. > > > > So you could use that as a workaround. > > > > I'll do some more checking, then submit a bug report and patch to Bugzilla. > > > > Duncan Murdoch > > Thanks much! I tried using stage=render, but then I get an error at > install time: > > Warning: > /private/var/folders/59/0gkmw1yj2w7bf2dfc3jznv5w0000gn/T/RtmpCG4Qz9/R.INSTALLec4743ba8cf4/ps/man/ps_handle.Rd:45-48: > Section \Sexpr is unrecognized and will be dropped > > And indeed the whole section is dropped. > > Seems like there is no clean workaround here. > > Thanks again, > G.
Btw. would it make sense to just allow \Sexpr as a top level section? Maybe here: https://github.com/wch/r-source/blob/98e9999eb0e8616550632a1675e4d2dbe630d5e4/src/library/tools/R/RdConv2.R#L500-L503 At least if stage=render, there is no way to check if the returned value is always a valid top level section, anyway. If it is not a valid section (or \Sexpr returns some bad markup in general), then the user gets a render-time error, but with stage=render I guess one cannot do better. G. ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
