>> 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.
I'm obviously not going to object if it's done automatically, and I already strive to avoid doubling and inconsistency by producing most my documentation algorithmically. I think you are being cavalier by not caring about the extra work you want package authors to do. >> 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. Then I don't think you should call what you want an abstract. >> 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. > > I like Sweave, and it is also possible to include your own PDFs and R files > and then to reference them in anRpackage.Rd. Yes, but they're not vignettes - which means they're not listed under vignette() and it's yet another place for people to look for documentation. Hadley -- http://had.co.nz/ ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
