Dear Hadley,
thank you very much for your comments.
hadley wickham wrote:
- there are lots of packages without one, so this would create a lot of
work for people to add them.
No, I don't think that this is too much work. Positively speaking, it's one
small contribution to bring more light into the exponentially growing
haystack.
It may not be much work for you, but I find any additional
requirements to the package format to be a real pain. I have ~10
packages on CRAN and having to go through and add this extra
information all at once is a big hassle. R releases tend to happen in
the middle of the US academic semester when I have a lot of other
things on my plate.
O.K., but the discussion with Duncan shows:
- the required information is already available (in DESCRIPTION),
- one can think about ways to generate the page automatically for
existing packages,
- the intro can be short and should link to other pages or PDFs,
- one should avoid doubling and inconsistency.
Additionally, I find that rdoc is the wrong format for lengthy
explanation and exposition - a pdf is much better - and I think that
the packages already have a abstract: the description field in
DESCRIPTION.
o.k., but abstract may be (technically) in the wrong format and does not
point to the other relevant parts of the package documentation.
The main problem with vignettes at the moment is that
they must be sweave, a format which I don't really like. I wish I
could supply my own pdf + R code file produced using whatever tools I
choose.
> Hadley
I like Sweave, and it is also possible to include your own PDFs and R
files and then to reference them in anRpackage.Rd.
Thomas P.
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
