Hi R-devels,
would it be possible to enhance either promptPackage()
or the default indexing mechanism for packages
so that -- if it exists -- (the contents of) file
<pkgname>-package.Rd is sorted first in
* the .dvi / .pdf documentation file
* the .chm documentation file
* the package 00index.html documentation file
?
So far I found the following "hand-made" solution for me:
(1) rename the <pkgname>-package.Rd file to, say,
0<pkgname>-package.Rd
(2) change the \name -field to
\name{(<pkgname>-package)}
(note the parentheses in order to sort this file before
any operators like "+", "-" etc..)
This is probably not quite the way it should be, but
at least it works under my standard-settings.
A more refined strategy would probably also take
into account something like a Collate field in
the DESCRIPTION field.
What is the opinion of R-Core to this question?
Thank you already
Peter
On 4/18/2006 7:02 PM, Peter Ruckdeschel wrote:> Hi R-devels, > > would it be possible to enhance either promptPackage() > or the default indexing mechanism for packages > so that -- if it exists -- (the contents of) file > <pkgname>-package.Rd is sorted first in > > * the .dvi / .pdf documentation file > * the .chm documentation file > * the package 00index.html documentation fileThey already sort first in the last of those. I don't think it is really possible in the index of a .chm file; they are alphabetical sorting only, as far as I know. (The package topic does sort first in the main contents page, which is the same as the 00index.html file.) It probably makes sense in a .dvi/.pdf, but as far as I recall, at the time I thought those were produced by the shell script for Rd2dvi, and it just seemed like too much trouble to change the collation order there. In fact, now I look closer I see they are produced by the Perl script tools/pkg2tex.pl so it shouldn't be hard to port the changes I made to Rdlists.pm over. I'll take a look. Duncan Murdoch> ? > > So far I found the following "hand-made" solution for me: > (1) rename the <pkgname>-package.Rd file to, say, > 0<pkgname>-package.Rd > (2) change the \name -field to > \name{(<pkgname>-package)} > (note the parentheses in order to sort this file before > any operators like "+", "-" etc..) > > This is probably not quite the way it should be, but > at least it works under my standard-settings. > > A more refined strategy would probably also take > into account something like a Collate field in > the DESCRIPTION field. > > What is the opinion of R-Core to this question? > > Thank you already > Peter > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
On 4/19/2006 1:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:>On 4/18/2006 7:02 PM, Peter Ruckdeschel wrote: >> would it be possible to enhance either promptPackage() >> or the default indexing mechanism for packages >> so that -- if it exists -- (the contents of) file >> <pkgname>-package.Rd is sorted first in >> >> * the .dvi / .pdf documentation file >> * the .chm documentation file >> * the package 00index.html documentation file>They already sort first in the last of those. I don't think it is >really possible in the index of a .chm file; they are alphabetical >sorting only, as far as I know. (The package topic does sort first in >the main contents page, which is the same as the 00index.html file.)Yes, you are right: the first two cases are already settled in a completely satisfying way [even with "+","-"-type methods!]. Sorry to have stirred you up --- I should have tried first.>It probably makes sense in a .dvi/.pdf,I tried out with an example now: at least for this case my request still applies ...>but as far as I recall, at the time I thought those were produced >by the shell script for Rd2dvi, and it just seemed like too much trouble >to change the collation order there. >In fact, now I look closer I see they are produced by the Perl >script tools/pkg2tex.pl so it shouldn't be hard to port the changes I >made to Rdlists.pm over. I'll take a look.would be very nice; thank you very much Peter