Great, thanks, Dirk. Nice example :-)
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org>
wrote:>
> On 28 October 2015 at 21:39, Marius Hofert wrote:
> | Out of laziness I just used "R CMD batch" instead of "R
CMD BATCH". I
> | didn't get an error so didn't think about the consequences... One
> | consequence is (at least on Mac OS X 10.11 but probably in more
> | generality) that R_BATCH_OPTIONS are ignored, which was kind of fatal
> | in my case... I am thus wondering whether it makes sense to either a)
> | have R_BATCH_OPTIONS also be respected for "R CMD batch" or b)
simply
> | not allow "R CMD batch" as a valid command (so requiring to use
"R CMD
> | BATCH"). Both approaches might be delicate... just wanted to point
> | this issue out...
>
> Same reason we have 'R CMD INSTALL' as there often is
/usr/bin/install with
> different options ...
>
> In general 'R CMD foo' will run for any 'foo' in the path:
>
> edd at max:~$ R CMD date
> Wed Oct 28 21:05:01 CDT 2015
> edd at max:~$
>
> Dirk
>
> --
> http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org
