Hello R-package-devel,
I've got a function that returns a data.frame. The columns (and their
names) of the return value are parametrised by the arguments of the
function. See, for example, the following function:
foo <- function(n = 10, out.M = c(2, 3, 5))
as.data.frame(setNames(
lapply(out.M, \(M) M * runif(n)),
paste0('fooval.', out.M)
))
If I call it as foo(out.M = 1), I get a data.frame containing a column
named fooval.1. If I call it as foo(), I get columns fooval.2,
fooval.3, and fooval.5 instead.
I would like to document this relationship between the arguments and
the output value like so:
\arguments{
\item{out.M}{Return the foo vectors for every M value given here.}
% more arguments that behave in a similar manner
}
% ...
\value{
A \code{data.frame} containing the following columns:
\item{fooval.\var{m}}{
The foo values, for every \var{m} in \code{out.M}.
}
% more parametrised output columns to follow
}
It turns out that \value{} description lists now escape their \item{}
arguments, preventing me from using \var{} markup there, but only in
plain text and HTML outputs. I think that the change occurred in the
last year or so; old versions of R process markup in \item{} arguments
even in \value{} description lists, but they have other Rd problems. I
understand the motivation of the change: in \arguments{} and \value{}
environments, it makes sense to typeset \item{} headings as \code{}.
Should I try to fix Rd2latex (or at least file a ticket) to escape the
\item{...} arguments in \value{} (but not \describe{}!) environments
too?
What would be a better Rd idiom for such function argument — output
component relationships?
--
Best regards,
Ivan
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
