Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files --- supplementary question.
On 12/11/17 08:08, Georgi Boshnakov wrote: It is more subtle than that. \Sexpr triggers the creation of "partial Rd database" which becomes part of the built package (the tar.gz file), although what exactly happens may also depend on 'stage' options of the \Sexpr's. ... However when I do the "R CMD build" thing, when it comes to the "* building the PDF package manual" step it says "Hmm ... looks like a package" (no shit, Sherlock!) and emits a huge amount of verbose LaTeX diagnostics. I have never seen "* building the PDF package manual" from 'R CMD build', see below for a sample console output on Windows from a package which contains Rd macros and vignettes. But did/do the macros have \Sexpr's in them? The messages you show seem to come from 'Rd2pdf'. Is it possible that you have some custom script that builds the manual, as well? No. I haven't. Also some environment variable may be the culprit. Don't think so. Anyhow, the message from R CMD build --help very clearly says: Usage: R CMD build [options] pkgdirs Build R packages from package sources in the directories specified by ‘pkgdirs’ Options: -h, --helpprint short help message and exit -v, --versionprint version info and exit --force force removal of INDEX file --keep-empty-dirs do not remove empty dirs --no-build-vignettes do not (re)build package vignettes --no-manual do not build the PDF manual even if \Sexprs are present ... ... ... I think that's pretty definitive. cheers, Rolf -- Technical Editor ANZJS Department of Statistics University of Auckland Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276 __ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files --- supplementary question.
It is more subtle than that.
\Sexpr triggers the creation of "partial Rd database" which becomes part of the
built package (the tar.gz file), although what exactly happens may also depend
on 'stage' options of the \Sexpr's.
> ... However when I do the "R CMD build" thing, when it comes to the
> "* building the PDF package manual"
> step it says "Hmm ... looks like a package" (no shit, Sherlock!) and
> emits a huge amount of verbose LaTeX diagnostics.
I have never seen "* building the PDF package manual" from 'R CMD build', see
below for a sample console output on Windows from a package which contains Rd
macros and vignettes. The messages you show seem to come from 'Rd2pdf'. Is it
possible that you have some custom script that builds the manual, as well? Also
some environment variable may be the culprit.
Best regards,
Georgi Boshnakov
C:\Users\mcbssgb2\Az\Rdevel\bitbucket\countr_project>R CMD build XXX
* checking for file 'XXX/DESCRIPTION' ... OK
* preparing 'XXX':
* checking DESCRIPTION meta-information ... OK
* cleaning src
* installing the package to process help pages
* saving partial Rd database
* creating vignettes ... OK
* cleaning src
* checking for LF line-endings in source and make files and shell scripts
* checking for empty or unneeded directories
* looking to see if a 'data/datalist' file should be added
* building 'XXX_3.4.1.tar.gz'
-Original Message-
From: R-package-devel [mailto:r-package-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf
Of Rolf Turner
Sent: 10 November 2017 20:01
To: Duncan Murdoch
Cc: r-package-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files --- supplementary question.
On 10/11/17 09:29, Rolf Turner wrote:
> On 09/11/17 23:40, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> On 09/11/2017 5:06 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
>>> Note the % may be a comment?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and the body should be written in Rd markup, not R. Working out
>> the appropriate number of escapes is painful; I recommend trial and
>> error.
>>
>> This worked for me:
>>
>> \newcommand{\today}{\Sexpr{format(Sys.Date(),"\\\%d/\\\%m/\\\%Y")}}
>
> Did that, and it worked like a charm. However when I do the "R CMD
> build" thing, when it comes to the "* building the PDF package manual"
> step it says "Hmm ... looks like a package" (no shit, Sherlock!) and
> emits a huge amount of verbose LaTeX diagnostics.
>
> "Normally" one just gets the line "* building the PDF package manual"
> and nothing else, and "R CMD build" just carries on cruising.
>
> Evidently defining a macro in the *.Rd file triggers the extra elaboration.
>
> It's no big deal of course, but I just thought I'd ask:
>
> (a) Is there anything to worry about in this respect?
>
> (b) Is there anything different that I should be doing?
>
> (c) Is there anyway of suppressing the (ever-so-slightly annoying)
> extra screen output?
>
> I guess that's really three supplementary questions
Following up a suggestion that I got from Adrian Baddeley I did
R CMD build --help
(I guess this is a case of RTFM) and I got:
> Usage: R CMD build [options] pkgdirs
>
> Build R packages from package sources in the directories specified by
> ‘pkgdirs’
>
> Options:
> -h, --helpprint short help message and exit
> -v, --versionprint version info and exit
>
> --force force removal of INDEX file
> --keep-empty-dirs do not remove empty dirs
> --no-build-vignettes do not (re)build package vignettes
> --no-manual do not build the PDF manual even if \Sexprs are
> present
> ...
> ...
> ...
So: What's triggering the building of the manual is the presence of \Sexpr in
my macro, and I can suppress this and get rid of all the unwanted LaTeX bumff
by using the --no-manual flag.
I must say that I don't see why the presence of a \Sexpr (WTF ever that
is) should trigger the building of the manual.
May I humbly suggest to R Core that this behaviour be modified; perhaps there
could be a --manual flag asking that the manual be built (whether or not there
are \Sexpr expressions in the *.Rd files).
cheers,
Rolf
--
Technical Editor ANZJS
Department of Statistics
University of Auckland
Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files --- supplementary question.
On 10/11/17 09:29, Rolf Turner wrote:
On 09/11/17 23:40, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 09/11/2017 5:06 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Note the % may be a comment?
Yes, and the body should be written in Rd markup, not R. Working out
the appropriate number of escapes is painful; I recommend trial and
error.
This worked for me:
\newcommand{\today}{\Sexpr{format(Sys.Date(),"\\\%d/\\\%m/\\\%Y")}}
Did that, and it worked like a charm. However when I do the "R CMD
build" thing, when it comes to the "* building the PDF package manual"
step it says "Hmm ... looks like a package" (no shit, Sherlock!) and
emits a huge amount of verbose LaTeX diagnostics.
"Normally" one just gets the line "* building the PDF package manual"
and nothing else, and "R CMD build" just carries on cruising.
Evidently defining a macro in the *.Rd file triggers the extra elaboration.
It's no big deal of course, but I just thought I'd ask:
(a) Is there anything to worry about in this respect?
(b) Is there anything different that I should be doing?
(c) Is there anyway of suppressing the (ever-so-slightly annoying)
extra screen output?
I guess that's really three supplementary questions
Following up a suggestion that I got from Adrian Baddeley I did
R CMD build --help
(I guess this is a case of RTFM) and I got:
Usage: R CMD build [options] pkgdirs
Build R packages from package sources in the directories specified by
‘pkgdirs’
Options:
-h, --helpprint short help message and exit
-v, --versionprint version info and exit
--force force removal of INDEX file
--keep-empty-dirs do not remove empty dirs
--no-build-vignettes do not (re)build package vignettes
--no-manual do not build the PDF manual even if \Sexprs are present
...
...
...
So: What's triggering the building of the manual is the presence of
\Sexpr in my macro, and I can suppress this and get rid of all the
unwanted LaTeX bumff by using the --no-manual flag.
I must say that I don't see why the presence of a \Sexpr (WTF ever that
is) should trigger the building of the manual.
May I humbly suggest to R Core that this behaviour be modified; perhaps
there could be a --manual flag asking that the manual be built (whether
or not there are \Sexpr expressions in the *.Rd files).
cheers,
Rolf
--
Technical Editor ANZJS
Department of Statistics
University of Auckland
Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files.
>http://developer.r-project.org/parseRd.pdf
I would add that it is best to think of "Rd markup" as a subset of TeX/LaTeX
markup (with some extentions) defined in
"Writing R Extensions" and Duncan's reference above.
The "subset" is important - if a feature is not mentioned in these references,
it is not available.
I once inadvertently used a modifier in the tabular environment (maybe
something like {l|l|l} which was fine for 'R CMD check', the pdf manual and
CRAN but the package failed to install on a system setup for static
installation of html documentation.
Georgi Boshnakov
-Original Message-
From: R-package-devel [mailto:r-package-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf
Of Duncan Murdoch
Sent: 09 November 2017 23:08
To: Rolf Turner
Cc: r-package-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files.
On 09/11/2017 3:05 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
> On 09/11/17 23:40, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> On 09/11/2017 5:06 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
>>> Note the % may be a comment?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and the body should be written in Rd markup, not R. Working out
>> the appropriate number of escapes is painful; I recommend trial and error.
>>
>> This worked for me:
>>
>>
>> \newcommand{\today}{\Sexpr{format(Sys.Date(),"\\\%d/\\\%m/\\\%Y")}}
>
> Now that is a bit more subtle! I don't understand what "written in Rd
> markup" really means, and I don't understand the "\Sexpr" construction.
> I'd seen it when looking at the example macros in
>
> /usr/local/lib64/R/share/Rd/macros/system.Rd
>
> but I figured if you know nothing about it, don't mess with it.
>
> Is there anywhere that I could read up about writing "in Rd markup"?
Not sure this would be helpful, but there's
http://developer.r-project.org/parseRd.pdf
The short summary is this:
Rd files are a mess. There are several different modes of parsing that
apply: at the top level you have Rd code, and in different contexts you may
have R code (or something close to it), or verbatim code (just kidding! There
are ways to signal you want out). Table 1 in that document says what syntax is
expected within what macro. In \newcommand, it says it wants "verbatim" input,
but really it's going to interpret that as Rd input, i.e. LaTeX-like.
Regret asking yet?
Duncan Murdoch
>
> Anyway, thanks for giving me the recipe, which is what I really need.
>
> cheers,
>
> Rolf
>
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files --- supplementary question ...
Hi Rolf, Another place to look for macros in Rd files would be in the spatstat package which I know you are quite familiary with ;-) However, I think our macros are plain LaTeX without calls to \Sexpr so it may behave differently than the case at hand. Cheers, Ege On 11/10/2017 02:00 AM, Rolf Turner wrote: On 10/11/17 13:10, François Michonneau wrote: A github search might be helpful to identify packages that define macros in their Rd files: https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=user%3Acran+extension%3Ard+newcommand&type=Code Thanks. Looking into it. cheers, Rolf __ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files --- supplementary question ...
On 10/11/17 13:10, François Michonneau wrote: A github search might be helpful to identify packages that define macros in their Rd files: https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=user%3Acran+extension%3Ard+newcommand&type=Code Thanks. Looking into it. cheers, Rolf -- Technical Editor ANZJS Department of Statistics University of Auckland Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276 __ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files --- supplementary question ...
A github search might be helpful to identify packages that define macros in their Rd files: https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=user%3Acran+extension%3Ard+newcommand&type=Code On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Rolf Turner wrote: > > On 10/11/17 12:00, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > > [Rolf Turner wrote:] > >> ... when I do the "R CMD >> >>> build" thing, when it comes to the "* building the PDF package manual" >>> step it says "Hmm ... looks like a package" (no shit, Sherlock!) and >>> emits a huge amount of verbose LaTeX diagnostics. >>> >>> "Normally" one just gets the line "* building the PDF package manual" >>> and nothing else, and "R CMD build" just carries on cruising. >>> >>> Evidently defining a macro in the *.Rd file triggers the extra >>> elaboration. >>> >>> It's no big deal of course, but I just thought I'd ask: >>> >>> (a) Is there anything to worry about in this respect? >>> >> >> Of course, never ignore diagnostics. Worry about every line that was >> printed! >> >> >>> (b) Is there anything different that I should be doing? >>> >> >> Sounds like it... >> >>> >>> (c) Is there anyway of suppressing the (ever-so-slightly annoying) >>> extra screen output? >>> >> >> Oooh, that's such a bad idea. Don't do that. Fix the problem that led >> to the output. >> > > Trouble is, I don't (a) know if this really *is* a problem, or (b) if it > is, any idea of how to work out how to fix it. > > I would like to know if it is "an expected phenomenon". Does it happen to > other people? I.e. is there anyone out there who has defined their > own macro in a *.Rd file, and if so, do *they* get a plethora of LaTeX > messages when they do "R CMD build" to the package in question? > > I'd love to hear from you! :-) > > cheers, > > Rolf > > -- > Technical Editor ANZJS > Department of Statistics > University of Auckland > Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276 > > __ > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files --- supplementary question ...
On 10/11/17 12:00, Duncan Murdoch wrote: [Rolf Turner wrote:] ... when I do the "R CMD build" thing, when it comes to the "* building the PDF package manual" step it says "Hmm ... looks like a package" (no shit, Sherlock!) and emits a huge amount of verbose LaTeX diagnostics. "Normally" one just gets the line "* building the PDF package manual" and nothing else, and "R CMD build" just carries on cruising. Evidently defining a macro in the *.Rd file triggers the extra elaboration. It's no big deal of course, but I just thought I'd ask: (a) Is there anything to worry about in this respect? Of course, never ignore diagnostics. Worry about every line that was printed! (b) Is there anything different that I should be doing? Sounds like it... (c) Is there anyway of suppressing the (ever-so-slightly annoying) extra screen output? Oooh, that's such a bad idea. Don't do that. Fix the problem that led to the output. Trouble is, I don't (a) know if this really *is* a problem, or (b) if it is, any idea of how to work out how to fix it. I would like to know if it is "an expected phenomenon". Does it happen to other people? I.e. is there anyone out there who has defined their own macro in a *.Rd file, and if so, do *they* get a plethora of LaTeX messages when they do "R CMD build" to the package in question? I'd love to hear from you! :-) cheers, Rolf -- Technical Editor ANZJS Department of Statistics University of Auckland Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276 __ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files.
On 09/11/2017 3:05 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
On 09/11/17 23:40, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 09/11/2017 5:06 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Note the % may be a comment?
Yes, and the body should be written in Rd markup, not R. Working out
the appropriate number of escapes is painful; I recommend trial and error.
This worked for me:
\newcommand{\today}{\Sexpr{format(Sys.Date(),"\\\%d/\\\%m/\\\%Y")}}
Now that is a bit more subtle! I don't understand what "written in Rd
markup" really means, and I don't understand the "\Sexpr" construction.
I'd seen it when looking at the example macros in
/usr/local/lib64/R/share/Rd/macros/system.Rd
but I figured if you know nothing about it, don't mess with it.
Is there anywhere that I could read up about writing "in Rd markup"?
Not sure this would be helpful, but there's
http://developer.r-project.org/parseRd.pdf
The short summary is this:
Rd files are a mess. There are several different modes of parsing that
apply: at the top level you have Rd code, and in different contexts you
may have R code (or something close to it), or verbatim code (just
kidding! There are ways to signal you want out). Table 1 in that
document says what syntax is expected within what macro. In
\newcommand, it says it wants "verbatim" input, but really it's going to
interpret that as Rd input, i.e. LaTeX-like.
Regret asking yet?
Duncan Murdoch
Anyway, thanks for giving me the recipe, which is what I really need.
cheers,
Rolf
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files.
On 09/11/2017 3:05 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
On 09/11/17 23:40, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 09/11/2017 5:06 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Note the % may be a comment?
Yes, and the body should be written in Rd markup, not R. Working out
the appropriate number of escapes is painful; I recommend trial and error.
This worked for me:
\newcommand{\today}{\Sexpr{format(Sys.Date(),"\\\%d/\\\%m/\\\%Y")}}
Now that is a bit more subtle! I don't understand what "written in Rd
markup" really means, and I don't understand the "\Sexpr" construction.
I'd seen it when looking at the example macros in
/usr/local/lib64/R/share/Rd/macros/system.Rd
but I figured if you know nothing about it, don't mess with it.
Is there anywhere that I could read up about writing "in Rd markup"?
Not sure this would be helpful, but there's
http://developer.r-project.org/parseRd.pdf
The short summary is this:
Rd files are a mess. There are several different modes of parsing that
apply: at the top level you have Rd code, and in different contexts you
may have R code (or something close to it), or verbatim code (just
kidding! There are ways to signal you want out). Table 1 in that
document says what syntax is expected within what macro. In
\newcommand, it says it wants "verbatim" input, but really it's going to
interpret that as Rd input, i.e. LaTeX-like.
Regret asking yet?
Duncan Murdoch
Anyway, thanks for giving me the recipe, which is what I really need.
cheers,
Rolf
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files --- supplementary question ...
On 09/11/2017 3:29 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
... Mr. Speaker.
On 09/11/17 23:40, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 09/11/2017 5:06 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Note the % may be a comment?
Yes, and the body should be written in Rd markup, not R. Working out
the appropriate number of escapes is painful; I recommend trial and error.
This worked for me:
\newcommand{\today}{\Sexpr{format(Sys.Date(),"\\\%d/\\\%m/\\\%Y")}}
Did that, and it worked like a charm. However when I do the "R CMD
build" thing, when it comes to the "* building the PDF package manual"
step it says "Hmm ... looks like a package" (no shit, Sherlock!) and
emits a huge amount of verbose LaTeX diagnostics.
"Normally" one just gets the line "* building the PDF package manual"
and nothing else, and "R CMD build" just carries on cruising.
Evidently defining a macro in the *.Rd file triggers the extra elaboration.
It's no big deal of course, but I just thought I'd ask:
(a) Is there anything to worry about in this respect?
Of course, never ignore diagnostics. Worry about every line that was
printed!
(b) Is there anything different that I should be doing?
Sounds like it...
(c) Is there anyway of suppressing the (ever-so-slightly annoying)
extra screen output?
Oooh, that's such a bad idea. Don't do that. Fix the problem that led
to the output.
Duncan
I guess that's really three supplementary questions
Thanks for any pointers.
cheers,
Rolf
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files --- supplementary question ...
... Mr. Speaker.
On 09/11/17 23:40, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 09/11/2017 5:06 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Note the % may be a comment?
Yes, and the body should be written in Rd markup, not R. Working out
the appropriate number of escapes is painful; I recommend trial and error.
This worked for me:
\newcommand{\today}{\Sexpr{format(Sys.Date(),"\\\%d/\\\%m/\\\%Y")}}
Did that, and it worked like a charm. However when I do the "R CMD
build" thing, when it comes to the "* building the PDF package manual"
step it says "Hmm ... looks like a package" (no shit, Sherlock!) and
emits a huge amount of verbose LaTeX diagnostics.
"Normally" one just gets the line "* building the PDF package manual"
and nothing else, and "R CMD build" just carries on cruising.
Evidently defining a macro in the *.Rd file triggers the extra elaboration.
It's no big deal of course, but I just thought I'd ask:
(a) Is there anything to worry about in this respect?
(b) Is there anything different that I should be doing?
(c) Is there anyway of suppressing the (ever-so-slightly annoying)
extra screen output?
I guess that's really three supplementary questions
Thanks for any pointers.
cheers,
Rolf
--
Technical Editor ANZJS
Department of Statistics
University of Auckland
Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files.
On 09/11/17 23:40, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 09/11/2017 5:06 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Note the % may be a comment?
Yes, and the body should be written in Rd markup, not R. Working out
the appropriate number of escapes is painful; I recommend trial and error.
This worked for me:
\newcommand{\today}{\Sexpr{format(Sys.Date(),"\\\%d/\\\%m/\\\%Y")}}
Now that is a bit more subtle! I don't understand what "written in Rd
markup" really means, and I don't understand the "\Sexpr" construction.
I'd seen it when looking at the example macros in
/usr/local/lib64/R/share/Rd/macros/system.Rd
but I figured if you know nothing about it, don't mess with it.
Is there anywhere that I could read up about writing "in Rd markup"?
Anyway, thanks for giving me the recipe, which is what I really need.
cheers,
Rolf
--
Technical Editor ANZJS
Department of Statistics
University of Auckland
Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files.
On 09/11/17 23:06, Uwe Ligges wrote: Note the % may be a comment? Ah, yes. Of course! Duh! (Slaps forehead vigorously!) Thanks. cheers, Rolf -- Technical Editor ANZJS Department of Statistics University of Auckland Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276 __ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files.
On 09/11/2017 5:06 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Note the % may be a comment?
Yes, and the body should be written in Rd markup, not R. Working out
the appropriate number of escapes is painful; I recommend trial and error.
This worked for me:
\newcommand{\today}{\Sexpr{format(Sys.Date(),"\\\%d/\\\%m/\\\%Y")}}
Duncan Murdoch
Uwe
On 09.11.2017 06:05, Rolf Turner wrote:
I tried to define a macro to produce today's date (like unto the
"\today" command in LaTeX):
\newcommand{\today}{format(Sys.date(),"%d/%m/%Y")}
I put this into my *.Rd file just before invoking it. (Something like
"I don't think I will do any more work today (i.e. \today).")
When I did
R CMD build ldEst
to my package I got the warning:
Warning:
/tmp/RtmpL6sNnQ/Rbuild7f3036693218/ldEst/man/sampleCiLength.Rd:95:
unexpected END_OF_INPUT '\keyword{ datagen }
Clearly I'm stuffing something up. Can some kind soul please provide me
with guidance as to what I *should* be doing?
Ta.
cheers,
Rolf Turner
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Re: [R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files.
Note the % may be a comment?
Uwe
On 09.11.2017 06:05, Rolf Turner wrote:
I tried to define a macro to produce today's date (like unto the
"\today" command in LaTeX):
\newcommand{\today}{format(Sys.date(),"%d/%m/%Y")}
I put this into my *.Rd file just before invoking it. (Something like
"I don't think I will do any more work today (i.e. \today).")
When I did
R CMD build ldEst
to my package I got the warning:
Warning:
/tmp/RtmpL6sNnQ/Rbuild7f3036693218/ldEst/man/sampleCiLength.Rd:95:
unexpected END_OF_INPUT '\keyword{ datagen }
Clearly I'm stuffing something up. Can some kind soul please provide me
with guidance as to what I *should* be doing?
Ta.
cheers,
Rolf Turner
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
[R-pkg-devel] Macros in Rd files.
I tried to define a macro to produce today's date (like unto the
"\today" command in LaTeX):
\newcommand{\today}{format(Sys.date(),"%d/%m/%Y")}
I put this into my *.Rd file just before invoking it. (Something like
"I don't think I will do any more work today (i.e. \today).")
When I did
R CMD build ldEst
to my package I got the warning:
Warning: /tmp/RtmpL6sNnQ/Rbuild7f3036693218/ldEst/man/sampleCiLength.Rd:95:
unexpected END_OF_INPUT '\keyword{ datagen }
Clearly I'm stuffing something up. Can some kind soul please provide me
with guidance as to what I *should* be doing?
Ta.
cheers,
Rolf Turner
--
Technical Editor ANZJS
Department of Statistics
University of Auckland
Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
