Dear all,
I don't like the current behaviour, but that change could break a lot of
existing documents. Since you can easily wrap your Sexpr arguments in a call to
whatever formatting function you want, why force all of those users to change
their documents?
I'm someone who would change a whole lot of \Sexpr{}s: I could get rid of all
those round() and format()s...
Currently almost don't use \Sexpr as I find the advantage of just having a tiny
little R expression in the text is lost if half a line of formatting code is
required. Particularly, as one has to be careful not to have a line break in the
\Sexpr{} as Sweave doesn't recognize those.
At the moment, I tend to use chunks with result=latex instead – which is not the
nicest thing to read in the source as it breaks the flow of a sentence quite
badly. But currently, it is much faster to type for me. On the other hand, maybe
it's just about time to write a template/snippet for \Sexpr{format (, digits =
3)}...
An alternative of course would be introducing a new kind of those commands. If
that's going to happen, I'd vote for something really short like the brew
syntax. But maybe I just didn't understand the advantage of \Sexpr{} and
\VignetteXXX{} looking like Latex commands although they aren't (particularly as
Latex source code highlighting without taking into account Sweave syntax is
anyways messed up by $ in the \Sexpr{}.
Also, very subjectively, I'd find a syntax with angle brackets more consistent
as the code chunks start with angle brackets anyways.
My 2 ct,
Claudia
--
Claudia Beleites
Dipartimento dei Materiali e delle Risorse Naturali
Università degli Studi di Trieste
Via Alfonso Valerio 6/a
I-34127 Trieste
phone: +39 0 40 5 58-37 68
email: cbelei...@units.it
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
