On 06/07/2015 5:09 PM, Rolf Turner wrote: > On 07/07/15 07:10, William Dunlap wrote: > > [Rolf Turner wrote.] > >>> The CRAN guidelines should be rewritten so that they say what they *mean*. >>> If a complete sentence is not actually required --- and it seems abundantly >>> clear >>> that it is not --- then guidelines should not say so. Rather they should >>> say, >>> clearly and comprehensibly, what actually *is* required. >> >> This may be true, but also think of the user when you write the description. >> If you are scanning a long list of descriptions looking for a package to >> use, >> seeing a description that starts with 'A package for' just slows you down. >> Seeing a description that includes 'designed to' leaves you wondering if the >> implementation is woefully incomplete. You want to go beyond what CRAN >> can test for. > > All very true and sound and wise, but what has this got to do with > complete sentences? The package checker issues a message saying that it > wants a complete sentence when this has nothing to do with what it > *really* wants.
That's false. If you haven't given a complete sentence, you might still pass, but if you have, you will pass. That's not "nothing to do" with what it really wants, it's just an imperfect test that fails to detect violations of the guidelines. As we've seen, it sometimes also makes mistakes in the other direction. I'd say those are more serious. Duncan Murdoch ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see 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.
