search for: chunkname

...undAndSignificance} \input{C:/DATA/SCHOLAR/ADHDConstipation/SonographicStudy/PAR06180/PreliminaryStudies} \input{C:/DATA/SCHOLAR/ADHDConstipation/SonographicStudy/PAR06180/ResearchDesignAndMethods} ...abbrevieated... \end{document} Some of the inputted files contain R code, enclosed in <<chunkname>>= and @. Several of them don't contain any R code. Can I compile the whole document with Sweave("Master.Rnw") ? Thanks. --Chris -- Christopher W. Ryan, MD SUNY Upstate Medical University Clinical Campus at Binghamton 40 Arch Street, Johnson City, NY 13790 cryanatbinghamt...

I'm trying to put together a poster using the LaTeX a0poster package and including some things from pstricks to get gradient shading, etc. The problem is that the default environments used by Sweave don't work where I need them. A simple code chunk like <<eval=FALSE>>= x <- 1 @ buried in a minipage within a psshadowbox gives the error Runaway argument? > x <- 1

...gests: knitr) and the vignette itself (%\VignetteEngine{knitr::knitr}). When Windows users (who may not have had knitr installed) tried to install it from source, they encountered an error from utils:::SweaveParseOptions . The proximal source of the problem was a chunk header of the form <<chunkName,fig.cap="Something with a comma in it, ...">>= ; this is legal knitr, but doesn't make it through SweaveParseOptions because the function just splits on a comma without trying to check for nesting within quotation marks. The second problem is that for some reason SweaveParseOp...

Hi, Consider the following (much simplified) Sweave example: -------------- First, we set the value of $x$: <<chunk1,eval=FALSE>>= x <- 1 @ Then we set the value of $y$: <<chunk2,eval=FALSE>>= y <- 2 @ Thus, the overall algorithm has this structure: <<combined,eval=FALSE>>= <<chunk1>> <<chunk2>> @

Although the specific behaviour that was reported has been fixed, bugs remain in Sweave's processing of comment lines when keep.source=TRUE This is in some senses a follow-up from earlier bugs. Hence the query -- what is the preferred procedure, to submit a new bug report? (Another option might be to add a comment to the web page for bug 14459.) Is there now a preference to submit via