Hi, Use of \Sexpr in an \if condition in R documentation results in a NOTE, but only during HTML documentation check, not any of the previous Rd checks:
\if{\Sexpr{'TRUE'}}{The condition evaluates to true.} * checking HTML version of manual ... NOTE Encountered the following conversion/validation errors: foo.Rd:10: condition must be plain text Is this supported? "Writing R documentation" ยง2.11 seems to agree: >> Also accepted [as a condition] are TRUE (matching all formats) and >> FALSE (matching no formats). These could be the output of the \Sexpr >> macro. In order to check the HTML documentation, check_Rd2HTML() runs tools::Rd2HTML() on the results of tools::Rd_db() [1]. The former runs \Sexpr[stage=render] macros and the latter runs \Sexpr[stage=build] macros, leaving \Sexpr[stage=install] macros unevaluated. The NOTE goes away if I switch the "stage" argument to anything but "install". Is there any downside to adding stages = c('build', 'install') to the Rd_db call or stages = c('install', 'render') to the Rd2HTML call in order to make this NOTE go away? -- Best regards, Ivan [1] https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/blob/d25e77715164e39c96baae4c180d8f980ec93932/src/library/tools/R/check.R#L4911-L4939 ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel