Hi Hadley,
I'd be happy to help, especially with my experience writing rdoc with
R and with ruby. I also have a couple of packages in development that
currently don't have any documentation, where I'd be happy to
experiment with new ways of doing documentation (I'm currently
planning on tryin
FWIW, I'll note that one or two of us are working on a documentation
system that uses XML and specifically extensions of Docbook to create
documentation for R objects and that transparently extends to general
articles, vignettes, books, etc. and dynamic and interactive
reproducible documents.
> I don't agree with this. Back in 2001 when this was first proposed it might
> have worked, but there's far too much inertia now to make a big change.
> Weren't you the one who objected to a requirement for a foo-package help
> topic? How would you like to rewrite all the help files for all of
Hi,
Not that I have time, but I suspect that there are not that many ways
to document a package, probably only five or six variants in the wild
and an overview function, with a name like packageOverview, would be
relatively easy to write and would be able to extract all available
information
On 07/10/2008 10:17 AM, hadley wickham wrote:
This shows up in the HTML help system. It would be better if it showed up
in all help formats, but there are other ways to do that, e.g. creating an
Rd help page pointing to those files.
Or you can just link to them from your website.
I don't thin
> This shows up in the HTML help system. It would be better if it showed up
> in all help formats, but there are other ways to do that, e.g. creating an
> Rd help page pointing to those files.
Or you can just link to them from your website.
I don't think you'd argue with the statement that there
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 07/10/2008 9:11 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>
>> Some examples are:
>> - be able to use brew package or similar alternative in place of Sweave
>> - provide a pdf regardless how it was generated
>> without ugly workaro
On 07/10/2008 9:11 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
Some examples are:
- be able to use brew package or similar alternative in place of Sweave
- provide a pdf regardless how it was generated
without ugly workarounds and still let the user get a list of all pdf
documents in
one place, e.g.
library(
Some examples are:
- be able to use brew package or similar alternative in place of Sweave
- provide a pdf regardless how it was generated
without ugly workarounds and still let the user get a list of all pdf
documents in
one place, e.g.
library(help = mypackage)
should list the vignettes and oth
G'day Hadley,
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 08:55:14 -0500
"hadley wickham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The main problem with vignettes at the moment is that
> >> they must be sweave, a format which I don't really like. I wish I
> >> could supply my own pdf + R code file produced using whatever
> >> to
--MP_/kvy20nVajVG/n.8m=_ZjLAX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 19:31:03 +0800
Berwin A Turlach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The attached patch (against the current SVN version of R) implements
> the latter st
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 19:31:03 +0800
Berwin A Turlach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The attached patch (against the current SVN version of R) implements
> the latter strategy. With this patch applied, "make check
> FORCE=FORCE" passes on my machine. The version of R that is build
> seems to give the
--MP_/Rxf/JAvsQx5JLkhZFc9Jmn4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
G'day Greg,
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:50:13 +0200 (CEST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is a low priority bug that has been around for a while, but I
> came across i
G'day Greg,
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:50:13 +0200 (CEST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is a low priority bug that has been around for a while, but I
> came across it again while alpha testing 2.8.
Indeed, that bug must have been around since splinefun was changed to
return a function with a deriv
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Nolwenn Le Meur wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am interested in using the SSYEV Lapack subroutine in a R package.
Unfortunately I am not familiar with the all Lapack library and I was
wondering why the routine SSYEV is not part of the R-LAPACK interface module.
Because it is a si
Hi everyone,
I am interested in using the SSYEV Lapack subroutine in a R package.
Unfortunately I am not familiar with the all Lapack library and I was
wondering why the routine SSYEV is not part of the R-LAPACK interface
module.
Is there any plan to extend the R-Lapack module in the next R
Dear List,
R packages may specify a "LinkingTo" attribute to specify dependencies to
the source code (mainly the header files) of other packages.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to also have a reference to the generated
library (.dll on Windows) of the other package. So including a header file
17 matches
Mail list logo
