>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
