On 13/01/2010 6:15 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:> I'm having trouble getting correct help output in some circumstances
for
> a package I've created. Though this is not an issue with the current R,
> I would like my package to work with previous ones as well.
>
> I'm looking for suggestions about how I could rework my .Rd file so
that
> it will work with prior R's. In particular, R 2.7 is in the latest
> stable release of Debian, so I'd like to solve the problem for 2.7.
>
> The .Rd file is for a function and has an arguments section like this
> \arguments{
> \item{formula}{ A formula giving the vectors containing
> ## skipped
> covariates. }
> ## skipped
> \item{stepdenominator}{See \code{stepnumerator} just above.}
>
> \item{do.what}{\describe{
> \item{1}{By default, calculates a maximimum likelihood. To evaluate
> a single likelihood, set all parameters to fixed. }
> \item{0}{Count number of paths and related statistics without
> evaluating the likelihood.}
> \item{-1}{Get detailed counts (but no likelihoods) associated with
> each case. The return value is a matrix.}
> \item{10}{Use the model to generate a random path for each
> case. returning a \code{data.frame} with simulated observed states
> and times and all other data as observed.}
> }}
>
> \item{testing}{This argument is only for use by developers. Set it
> ## etc
>
> This comes out fine in a pdf, but ?mspath (the function) produces, in
> part,
> <quote>
> stepdenominator: See 'stepnumerator' just above.
>
> 1 By default, calculates a maximimum likelihood. To evaluate a
> single likelihood, set all parameters to fixed.
>
> 0 Count number of paths and related statistics without evaluating
> the likelihood.
> </quote>
> in R 2.7. The "do.what" header has vanished. In R 2.10 it's
fine.
>
> Is there an error in my documentation format?
> Even if not, is there some change I could make that would get R 2.7 to
> work better?
I would avoid nesting the \describe within \arguments. Both basically
use the same formatting code, and 2.7 probably doesn't support nesting
properly. There was no real parser there, just a fallible pattern
matching approach.
A better solution is to say your package requires a recent version of R,
but maybe that's not feasible for you.
Duncan Murdoch
>
> The R change log doesn't show anything obviously related to this,
though
> it has several references to unspecified fixes to the documentation
> system. I also tried looking at the bug tracker, but couldn't find
> anything--in fact I had trouble identifying bugs in the documentation
> system as opposed to bugs in the documentation.
>
> Thanks.
> Ross Boylan
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel