On 10/9/06, hadley wickham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Current .Rd documentation has some obvious problems: > > > > - the parser strips comments out of examples when it runs them > > - there's no way to put images into the documentation > > - the keywords aren't much use > > - there's isn't a definition anywhere of what the format really is, so > > it's hard to know > > whether something will work other than by trying it -- and it may break > > with the next release. > > - there's no way to link from a help man page to a vignette or other > > form of documentation. > > The main thing I don't like about the current system is the amount of > duplication - you have to supply a lot of information in the > documentation that is also encoded in the function (ie. everything in > the codoc check). This makes it unnecessarily painful when updating > documentation to reflect minor changes. The large distance between > code and documentation also makes it easy to forget to update the > documentation when changing the code. These are things that are > helped by inline documentation (which I am using) > > Hadley
The biggest problem I find with the current system is that the error or warning messages in R CMD check often leave you without a good idea of where the problem occurred and one is left removing half the package and dividing successively until its found. ______________________________________________ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
