В Thu, 25 Apr 2024 10:10:44 -0700
Kevin Ushey <kevinus...@gmail.com> пишет:
> I'm guessing the most welcome kinds of contributions would be
> documentation? IMHO, "documenting an API" and "describing how an API
> can be used" are somewhat separate endeavors. I believe R-exts does an
> excellent job of the latter, but may not be the right vehicle for the
> former. To that end, I believe it would be helpful to have some
> structured API documentation as a separate R-api document.
Now that we have a machine-readable list of APIs in the form of
system.file('wre.txt', package = 'tools') (which is not yet an API
itself, but I trust we'll be able to adapt to ongoing changes), it's
possible to work on such an R-api document.
I've put a proof of concept that checks its Texinfo indices against the
list of @apifun entries in wre.txt at <https://codeberg.org/aitap/R-api>
with a rendered version at <https://aitap.codeberg.page/R-api/>. I've
tried to address Agner's concerns [*] about R_NO_REMAP by showing the
declarations available with or without this preprocessor symbol
defined.
34 vaguely documented entry points out of 538 lines in wre.txt is
obviously not enough, but I'm curious whether this is the right
direction. Should we keep to a strict structure, like in Rd files, with
a table for every argument and the return value? Can we group functions
together, or should there be a separate @node for every function and
variable? Is Rd (and Henrik's earlier work [**]) a better format than
Texinfo for a searchable C API reference?
--
Best regards,
Ivan
[*] https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-package-devel/2024q2/010913.html
[**] https://github.com/HenrikBengtsson/RNativeAPI
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
