Dear Duncan,
Thank you, got it working with your advice.
I did placed the child markdown documents into inst/ParametrizedReportsChild
And this is the code in the main vignette by which I include them:
child_docs <- "Grp2Analysis_MissingInOneCondtion.Rmd_t"
if(!sum(NAinfo$nrProteins > 0) > 0){
You might have more luck getting help with a completely self-contained
example (no QT in particular) and a complete description of how you
built and ran your example.
That said, the placement of the call to Rf_endEmbedded looks a little
odd.
Best,
luke
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Andéol Evain wrote:
On 12/07/2018 9:46 AM, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:30 PM Gábor Csárdi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:21 PM Duncan Murdoch wrote:
I think I found the bug. The tools::checkRd function only processes
\Sexpr's with "stage=render". I think the author (who might have been
me,
Hello everyone,
I have a C++ program that calls R using R_tryEval, very similarly to what
package RInside does.
It used to work with R.3.4.3 and R.3.4.4. However, since I updated it to
R.3.5.1, R sends an error message: "*Error in < My command > : the base
graphics system is not registered*" for
On 12/07/2018 9:46 AM, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:30 PM Gábor Csárdi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:21 PM Duncan Murdoch wrote:
I think I found the bug. The tools::checkRd function only processes
\Sexpr's with "stage=render". I think the author (who might have been
me,
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:30 PM Gábor Csárdi wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:21 PM Duncan Murdoch
> wrote:
> > I think I found the bug. The tools::checkRd function only processes
> > \Sexpr's with "stage=render". I think the author (who might have been
> > me, I forget) assumed that would
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:21 PM Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> I think I found the bug. The tools::checkRd function only processes
> \Sexpr's with "stage=render". I think the author (who might have been
> me, I forget) assumed that would imply all the earlier stages as well,
> but apparently it doesn't
On 12/07/2018 7:30 AM, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:23 PM Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
On 12/07/2018 6:33 AM, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
I would like to create \examples{} in the manual dynamically, and
while it is possible to do this with a \Sexpr at the top level, R CMD
check issues a w
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:23 PM Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
>
> On 12/07/2018 6:33 AM, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
> > I would like to create \examples{} in the manual dynamically, and
> > while it is possible to do this with a \Sexpr at the top level, R CMD
> > check issues a warning for it. (See below.)
> >
On 12/07/2018 6:33 AM, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
I would like to create \examples{} in the manual dynamically, and
while it is possible to do this with a \Sexpr at the top level, R CMD
check issues a warning for it. (See below.)
Is it intentional that \Sexpr is not allowed at the top level? The Rd
gr
I would like to create \examples{} in the manual dynamically, and
while it is possible to do this with a \Sexpr at the top level, R CMD
check issues a warning for it. (See below.)
Is it intentional that \Sexpr is not allowed at the top level? The Rd
grammar allows this, but R CMD check does not.
11 matches
Mail list logo
