Getting back to the \Sexpr issue, I tried with R-2.14.0 and I still see
the following issues:
- verbatim multiline is not shown properly on PDF
(\Sexpr[results=verbatim, stage=render]{cat("line\nnext line")})
- verbatim with empty lines breaks PDF generation
(\Sexpr[results=verbatim, stage=render]{cat("line\nnext line\n\nyet
another line")}). Would there be an issue in using a plain Latex
verbatim environment for \Sexpr[results=verbatim]?
- an error in an \Sexpr (\Sexpr[results=verbatim,
stage=render]{stop("error in sexpr")}) gives the following in R CMD check:
* checking examples ... ERROR
Error in paste(before, x, after, sep = "") : object 'exfile' not found
Execution halted
The two first issues can be reproduced with a call to R CMD Rd2pdf on
the Rd code below.
Thank you.
Renaud.
%%%%%%%%%%%
\name{Sexpr}
\alias{Sexpr}
\title{Error and verbatim in Sexpr}
\description{
Testing Sexpr in Rd files
%\Sexpr[results=verbatim, stage=render]{stop("error in sexpr")}
\Sexpr[results=verbatim, stage=render]{cat("line\nnext line")}
%\Sexpr[results=verbatim, stage=render]{cat("line\nnext line\n\nyet
another line")}
}
%%%%%%%%%%%
--
Renaud Gaujoux
Computational Biology - University of Cape Town
South Africa
On 28/10/2011 17:25, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 28/10/2011 10:53 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 28/10/2011 10:49 AM, Renaud Gaujoux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> another Rd related issue I encountered is that if an error occurs
in an
> \Sexpr in an Rd file, then on get the following error:
>
> * checking for portable compilation flags in Makevars ... OK
> * checking for portable use of $(BLAS_LIBS) and $(LAPACK_LIBS) ... OK
> * checking examples ... ERROR
> Error in paste(before, x, after, sep = "") : object 'exfile' not
found
> Execution halted
>
> To reproduce, put a call like this in an Rd section:
>
> \Sexpr[results=verbatim, stage=render]{x<- 1; stop("sexpr error")}
>
> The strange thing is that it occurs at the example checking step.
> Not sure why it does not break before.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Renaud
>
> PS: I am on R version 2.13.2 (2011-09-30) - x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
(64-bit)
>
I would update to 2.13.2 patched, or the release candidate of 2.14.0.
Oops, sorry, 2.13.2 is "final", so I didn't backport the patch.
2.14.0 is what you should get.
Duncan Murdoch
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
