On 27/05/2021 4:54 p.m., Jan Netík wrote:
I am so sorry, my post sounded quite the opposite of what I intended! I
used the term "monkey patch" as a technical one (see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_patch
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_patch>) and I said "weird"
meaning mathjaxr is something fulfilling the concept, but only figuratively.
Actually I gave mathjaxr as a good (the best I know, in fact) example of
an approach how to solve the issue. However, no package can achieve
nicely formatted/rendered math in every single R documentation files. I
thought this could be solved globally, directly in R, as it is the case
of PDF Reference manual. I propose (in line with mathjaxr authors) that
mathjax is pretty good candidate for it.
Now I don't understand your point at all. If you like mathjax, what's
wrong with mathjaxr?
Just guessing, but perhaps you think that base R should incorporate
mathjax, so package authors don't need to use mathjaxr. That's an
example of a common suggestion, of the form "Package X does a great job
at Y. Why doesn't R incorporate it?" The answer is usually "Because
package X is doing a great job at it. If R incorporated it, it would
add to the R Core workload with no advantage." R Core should do things
that can't be done in packages (and things they like to do, let's give
them that). If something has been done in a package and you don't like
the way they did it, then do it better in a different package.
Duncan Murdoch
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
