Re: [Rd] author field in Rd files

From: Martin Maechler <maechler_at_stat.math.ethz.ch>
Date: Sat 28 Aug 2004 - 06:54:19 EST

Since nobody else has reacted yet:

>>>>> "Timothy" == Timothy H Keitt <tkeitt@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>>> on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:53:39 -0500 writes:

    Timothy> I noticed in the extension manual that the
    Timothy> \author{} entry should refer to the author of the
    Timothy> Rd file and not the code documented. I had always
    Timothy> interpreted it as the author of the code, not the
    Timothy> documentation. I wonder if others also find this
    Timothy> ambiguous.

I tend to agree with you. Very often the author means both the author of the R object and the help page. In the few other cases, for me, I was the help page author (rather than the other way around) and I think I usually have done what you suggest: Showed the author of the code and sometimes also mentioned myself (as docu-author), but typically only if I had also improved on the code.

    Timothy> Its generally not an issue, except when there is a
    Timothy> third party writing documentation. It looks like
    Timothy> they wrote all the code. Would it make sense to
    Timothy> have two entries, one for the documentation author
    Timothy> and one for the code author if different?

I think in such a case \author{..} should contain both the code and documentation authors.
In a package with many help pages, a possibility is also to  specify \author{..} and \references{....} in only a few help pages and for the others, inside the \seealso{...} section have a sentence pointing to the main help page(s), such as \seealso{

	  ..............
	  For references etc, \code{\link{<mainpage>}}.
}

Regards,
Martin Maechler



R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel Received on Sat Aug 28 06:58:24 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed 03 Nov 2004 - 22:45:10 EST