Re: [Rd] why is \alias{anRpackage} not mandatory?

From: Thomas Petzoldt <Thomas.Petzoldt_at_TU-Dresden.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:26:14 +0200

Dear R Developers,

first of all, many thanks for the constructive discussion. My question was related to the use of existing mechanisms that (in my opinion) would help to make package documentation more user-friendly. I agree that additional restrictions/requirements on packages that do not not have explicit objectives on performance or validity have to be avoided.

Thomas Petzoldt


Summary and Wish-list

1 A recommendation to provide a file "foo-package.Rd" and an \alias{foo} was already given in "Writing R Extensions".

2 In order to ensure consistency between foo-package.Rd, DESCRIPTION and other sources of information, a mechanism to use variables and/or macros in .Rd format is desirable.

3 There may be reasons, where manual creation and maintenance of foo-package.Rd is not wanted, i.e. work load or danger of information inconsistency. For such cases, an automated mechanism during package installation may be helpful.

Already existing functions like

library(help="foo")

   or
promptPackage("foo", final=TRUE)

can do the job but may require extensions (hyperlinks).

4 The standard help format on Windows .chm should also find a way to provide hyperlinks to package vignettes (and other pdfs), either directly in the package index (as in html) or in foo-package.Rd



R-devel_at_r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel Received on Fri 10 Oct 2008 - 06:29:06 GMT

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Fri 10 Oct 2008 - 06:30:18 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel. Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive