Re: [Rd] Programming Tools CTV
Hi, this summer, after few mails on this list, i started something similar (feeling the same need)... here is the repo https://github.com/lbraglia/PackageDevelopmentTaskView Currently it's quite freezed since i'm working on other projects in my free software spare time (and likely i won't return to it) but could be a starting point for someone else interested. Best, Luca PS in the case, following some mails with Dirk and Achim, HPC stuff a-la Rcpp and friends should not be copied from Dirk's stuff, better pointing... it was in my mental TODO 2015-01-22 18:23 GMT+01:00 Gregory R. Warnes g...@warnes.net: I second the motion for a Programming Tools CRAN Task View. I would also think it could contain things like Rcpp, R6, etc. -Greg On Jan 22, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Max Kuhn mxk...@gmail.com wrote: I've had a lot of requests for additions to the reproducible research task view that fall into a grey area (to me at least). For example, roxygen2 is a tool that broadly enable reproducibility but I see it more as a tool for better programming. I'm about to check in a new version of the task view that includes packrat and checkpoint, as they seem closer to reproducible research, but also feel like coding tools. There are a few other packages that many would find useful for better coding: devtools, testthat, lintr, codetools, svTools, rbenchmark, pkgutils, etc. This might be some overlap with the HPC task view. I would think that rJava, Rcpp and the like are better suited there but this is arguable. The last time I proposed something like this, Martin deftly convinced me to be the maintainer. It is probably better for everyone if we avoid that on this occasion. * Does anyone else see the need for this? * What other packages fit into this bin? * Would anyone like to volunteer? Thanks, Max __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] [Wishlist] a 'PackageDevelopment' Task View
On 27/07/14 - 13:19, Darren Norris wrote: including packages like sos seems justified and helpful. Thanks Darren and John, considering both the programmer and the user point of view, being a bit less strict about inclusion criteria in this case (search) may be definitely helpful. Best, Luca __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] [Wishlist] a 'PackageDevelopment' Task View
On 27/07/14 - 09:33, Christophe Dutang wrote: Hi Luca, Let me suggest to follow the table of contents of http://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.html For example, you could use the following TOC: 1 - Creating R pkg 2 - Writing documentation and vignettes 3 - Profiling code 4 - Debugging, spell checking 5 - Foreign languages interfaces 6 - GUI and other frond-ends 7 - Unit testing 8 - Benchmarking 9 - Automation Maybe 7 and 8 could be merged? Thanks Christophe for the feedback I'm starting to think I'd like to keep the Source Code section separated from the Documentation section ... eg ideally the macro topics could be in this order 1 - Creation 2 - Source Code 3 - Documentation 4 - Tools and services (was Automation) Furthermore IMHO a granular sub-topic structure is a plus (eg few packages for a distinct/well-focused task is no problem, maybe a resource ... ) An updated temp TOC (integrating your ideas, and some new packages listed) could be == 1 - Creation o Creating R packages - utils::package.skeleton, pkgKitten, Rcpp::Rcpp.package.skeleton 2 - Source code o Foreign languages interfaces - base R support for that, inline, Rcpp , Rcpp11, rJava o Debugging - base::debug utils::recover and friends o Code analysis - codetools o Profiling - utils::Rprof, aprof, profr, proftools o Benchmarking - base::system.time, microbenchmarking, rbenchmark o Unit testing - RUnit, svUnit, testthat 3 - Documentation o Writing Package Documentation (functions, data sets, classes and methods, packages) - roxygen2 o Writing Vignettes - Sweave, knitr o Spell checking - tools::aspell_package_* functions 4 - Tools and services o Editors (supporting package development) o IDEs (supporting package development) o Makefiles o Revision control (most common in the R community): subversion, git o Hosting services (most common in the R community): r-forge, github == I have a few doubts if 8.Linking GUIs and other front-ends to R from R-exts could be strictly in topic with _R_package_ development (eg looking at the list above) but not much experience in that area and jm2c. And I have to integrate these Gabor's suggestions yet : 1) List the software mentioned here or provide links: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/R_Programming/Settings#Integrated_development_environment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open-source_software_hosting_facilities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_revision_control_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_integration#Software 2) Go through the R Extensions manual and add all tools listed. 3) Use of Rcpp/Rcpp11 implies the use of C++ tools too and use of rjava implies java tools. Further ideas/comments/proposals are welcome. Cheers, Luca __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] [Wishlist] a 'PackageDevelopment' Task View
On 27/07/14 - 08:42, Spencer Graves wrote: On 7/27/2014 7:46 AM, Luca Braglia wrote: I'm starting to think I'd like to keep the Source Code section separated from the Documentation section ... eg ideally the macro topics could be in this order 1 - Creation 2 - Source Code 3 - Documentation 4 - Tools and services (was Automation) Furthermore IMHO a granular sub-topic structure is a plus (eg few packages for a distinct/well-focused task is no problem, maybe a resource ... ) An updated temp TOC (integrating your ideas, and some new packages listed) could be == 1 - Creation o Creating R packages - utils::package.skeleton, pkgKitten, Rcpp::Rcpp.package.skeleton 2 - Source code o Foreign languages interfaces - base R support for that, inline, Rcpp , Rcpp11, rJava o Debugging - base::debug utils::recover and friends o Code analysis - codetools o Profiling - utils::Rprof, aprof, profr, proftools o Benchmarking - base::system.time, microbenchmarking, rbenchmark o Unit testing - RUnit, svUnit, testthat 3 - Documentation o Writing Package Documentation (functions, data sets, classes and methods, packages) - roxygen2 o Writing Vignettes - Sweave, knitr o Spell checking - tools::aspell_package_* functions 4 - Tools and services o Editors (supporting package development) o IDEs (supporting package development) o Makefiles o Revision control (most common in the R community): subversion, git o Hosting services (most common in the R community): r-forge, github == I've heard claims that people who write documentation with unit tests first tend to get better code faster than people who write the code first and documentation (and maybe examples and unit tests) later. I've heard there is research behind this. However, I'm not sure where to find it. Others may be able to suggest publications that support or refute this claim. In any event, I tend to create (a) documentation first, including (b) unit tests in the examples section, before (c) writing code. When I started writing R packages following this model, I felt my software development productivity increased by a factor of 5 or so. Hi Spencer, I'm trying that way of developing too (test before code), but the numbering in my previous mail are not meant to be suggestion for development process/flow steps (apologies for that, it was only a way to alternate lists (numbers for sections, bullets for tasks), no numbering is really going to be included in the task view). The proposed TOC was compiled in a way that (to me) eases finding which packages are available, given what are you working on (source code or documentation) and the specific task you need to accomplish. Best, Luca __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] [Wishlist] a 'PackageDevelopment' Task View
On 27/07/14 - 10:07, Spencer Graves wrote: Regarding finding which packages are available, I didn't see the sos package on the list: Many packages are still missing (eg devtools) because in these first steps i'm trying to focus mainly on the Task View TOC/structure (and in the case, devtools has to be splitted across tasks, TODO) BTW sos is a great package, +1 for the disclaimer, but IMHO doesn't fit R package development strictly jm2c Luca __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] [Wishlist] a 'PackageDevelopment' Task View
2014-07-25 14:29 GMT+02:00 Duncan Murdoch murdoch.dun...@gmail.com: On 25/07/2014 8:05 AM, Luca Braglia wrote: Hello everybody, as a young/unexperienced R package developer (only a few, mainly for personal use) i was thinking it could be very useful having a meta task view for all package-development related packages and/or function. Something like ... Creation - utils::package.skeleton, pkgKitten, Rcpp::Rcpp.package.skeleton Foreign languages interfaces: - Rcpp Documentation - roxygen2 Profiling: - utils::Rprof - profr - proftools Unit test - RUnit - testthat Spell checking - tools::aspell_package_* functions Misc: - devtools and so on. These are only the ones i (use or know) (remember), but for sure there is already a lot of useful code in this area and having a summary (by more experienced developers) of which good tools are available would be *very* useful, IMHO. How about it? Sounds like a good idea. You should do it. Download the ctv package, and read the vignette for instructions. Duncan Murdoch Fine, I've set up a github repo here https://github.com/lbraglia/PackageDevelopmentTaskView and a first thread about task view structure here https://github.com/lbraglia/PackageDevelopmentTaskView/issues/1 Contribution (via e-mail or github) are, of course, really welcome. Cheers, Luca __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
[Rd] [Wishlist] a 'PackageDevelopment' Task View
Hello everybody, as a young/unexperienced R package developer (only a few, mainly for personal use) i was thinking it could be very useful having a meta task view for all package-development related packages and/or function. Something like ... Creation - utils::package.skeleton, pkgKitten, Rcpp::Rcpp.package.skeleton Foreign languages interfaces: - Rcpp Documentation - roxygen2 Profiling: - utils::Rprof - profr - proftools Unit test - RUnit - testthat Spell checking - tools::aspell_package_* functions Misc: - devtools and so on. These are only the ones i (use or know) (remember), but for sure there is already a lot of useful code in this area and having a summary (by more experienced developers) of which good tools are available would be *very* useful, IMHO. How about it? Thanks, Luca __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] error in the examples of a package
Is addpoints exported? [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
[Rd] [lbrag...@gmail.com: [wishlist] \href in Rd]
mmm maybe lost somewhere cheers - Forwarded message from Luca Braglia lbrag...@gmail.com - Subject: [wishlist] \href in Rd Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:40:54 +0100 From: Luca Braglia lbrag...@gmail.com To: R Bug r-b...@r-project.org User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Following this thread https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2010-January/225856.html it would be nice having an implementation of the LaTeX \href for Rd too. Thanks in advance Luca - End forwarded message - __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
[Rd] typos
Hi
few typos i've found
?.C
Specifying 'ENCODING' overrrides any declared encodings (see
'link{Encoding}')
\link{Encoding}
writing R extensions, pag 73 (pdf version), note 1,
and we provided an emulation on Windows 2000): see ?dyn.oad
^ ^^
1 2
cut ) and dyn.load
writing R extensions
5.2 Interface functions .C and .Fortran
For .C only you can specify an ENCODING argument
^^^
now also for .Fortran ;)
R Installation and Administration
1.2 Getting patched and development versions
A patched version of the current release, `r-patched' and the current
^^
a comma after `r-patched'
---
I also would like to close bug/wishlist #9613 ... It was a
juvenile mistake! :)
Thank you,
Luca
__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Re: [Rd] typo in italian translation (PR#10367)
On 24/10/07 - 08:07, Thomas Lumley wrote: Thanks for reporting this, but please report it to the Italian translation team. R-core doesn't try to manage translation bugs because most of us don't know most of the languages. Contact addressses for the translation teams are listed at http://developer.r-project.org/TranslationTeams.html ok, next time I'll send it directly to prof. Stefano Iacus thanks for the advice Luca Braglia __ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
