On 6/5/07, Friedrich Leisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:52:51 -0700, > >>>>> Robert Gentleman (RG) wrote: > > > Deepayan Sarkar wrote: > >> On 6/4/07, Seth Falcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Friedrich Leisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>> Looks good to me, and certainly something worth being added to R. > >>>> > >>>> 2 quick (related) comments: > >>>> > >>>> 1) I am not sure if we want to include links to the Latex-Sources by > >>>> default, those might confuse unsuspecting novices a lot. Perhaps > >>>> make those optional using an argument to browseVignettes(), which > >>>> is FALSE by default? > >>> I agree that the Rnw could confuse folks. But I'm not sure it needs > >>> to be hidden or turned off by default... If the .R file was also > >>> included then it would be less confusing I suspect as the curious > >>> could deduce what Rnw is about by triangulation. > >>> > >>>> 2) Instead links to .Rnw files we may want to include links to the R > >>>> code -> should we R CMD INSTALL a tangled version of each vignette > >>>> such that we can link to it? Of course it is redundant information > >>>> given the .Rnw, but we also have the help pages in several formats > >>>> ready. > >>> Including, by default, links to the tangled .R code seems like a > >>> really nice idea. I think a lot of users who find vignettes don't > >>> realize that all of the code used to generate the entire document is > >>> available to them -- I just had a question from someone who wanted to > >>> know how to make a plot that appeared in a vignette, for example. > >> > >> I agree that having a Stangled .R file would be a great idea (among > >> other things, it would have the complete code, which many PDFs will > >> not). > >> > >> I don't have a strong opinion either way about linking to the .Rnw > >> file. It should definitely be there if the PDF file is absent (e.g. > >> for grid, and other packages installed with --no-vignettes, which I > >> always do for local installation). Maybe we can keep them, but change > >> the name to something more scary than "source", e.g. "LaTeX/Noweb > >> source". > > > I would very much prefer to keep the source, with some name, scary or > > not... > > I have no strong opinion eitehr way, just "source" may have a lot of > people belive that is R code -> whatever "scary" name is chosen sounds > good to me. > > I'll have a shot at installing the tangled code later this week (there > is a holiday coming up on Thursday).
Great. Assuming that this will involve .../Meta/vignette.rds getting a new column similar to "PDF", the code changes in browseVignette() should be minimal. I'll work on a .Rd file. -Deepayan ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
