1. The starting point of this discussion is package vignettes, instead
of R scripts. I'm not saying we should abandon R scripts, or all
people should write R code to generate reports. Starting from a
package vignette, you can evaluate it using a weave function, or
evaluate its derivative, namely an
Yes, that is a matter of familiarity as I mentioned, isn't it? I
understand this justification. I can argue that it is also convenient
to give people an Rnw/Rmd document and they can easily run the R code
chunks as well (e.g. in RStudio, chunk navigation and evaluation are
pretty simple) _within_ t
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Yihui Xie wrote:
I agree that fully evaluating the code is valuable, but
> it is not a problem since the weave functions do fully evaluate the
> code. If there is a reason for why source() an R script is preferred,
>
I guess it is users' familiarity with .R instea
The Bioconductor project has a substantial amount of teaching material in
the form of Sweave files. For teaching, it can be extremely convenient to
give people an R script which they can copy and paste from (or do something
else with). This is especially true for inexperienced R users.
Best,
Kas
I mentioned in my original post that Sweave()/knit()/... can be
considered as the "new" source(). They can do the same thing as
source() does. I agree that fully evaluating the code is valuable, but
it is not a problem since the weave functions do fully evaluate the
code. If there is a reason for w
On 05/31/2014 03:52 PM, Yihui Xie wrote:
Note the test has been done once in weave, since R CMD check will try
to rebuild vignettes. The problem is whether the related tools in R
should change their tangle utilities so we can **repeat** the test,
and it seems the answer is "no" in my eyes.
Regar
Vignettes can fail to build for reasons unrelated to code. In that case it
seems useful to the developer to know whether the the code is failing
(indicating a likely problem in the package itself) or just the TeX in the
vignette.
Also, I could be wrong about this, but I thought the "run the vign
Note the test has been done once in weave, since R CMD check will try
to rebuild vignettes. The problem is whether the related tools in R
should change their tangle utilities so we can **repeat** the test,
and it seems the answer is "no" in my eyes.
Regards,
Yihui
--
Yihui Xie
Web: http://yihui.n
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Yihui Xie wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> I tend to adopt Henrik's idea, i.e., to provide vignette
> engines that just ignore tangle. At the moment, it seems R CMD check
> is comfortable with vignettes that do not have corresponding R
> scripts, and I hope these R scripts
>
FWIW this seems to be a FAQ:
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2003-July/027018.html
http://thr3ads.net/r-devel/2013/01/
2171832-Re-na.omit-option-in-prcomp-formula-interface-only
http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/
na-omit-option-in-prcomp-formula-interface-only-td4373533.html
And tw
10 matches
Mail list logo
