search for: wre

...g for the appropriate field to let package authors to declare the pkg documentation language for spell checkers. The most important case is to specify a preference between "en-US" or "en-GB" which can be used by the hunspell or spelling pkg to select the appropriate dictionary. WRE defines the "Language" field for documentation language, but from the current description it seems restricted to 2 or 3 letter ISO-639 codes such as "en" or "eng". WRE also mentions rfc-5646, which refers to ISO 3166-1 for region/country subtags but it is unclear if th...

If a package has importClassesFrom(P, C) in its NAMESPACE, then should it _also_ have importClassesFrom(P, <superclasses of C exported from P>) importClassesFrom(Q, <superclasses of C exported from Q>) ## and so on ... ? I think that WRE could be more clear on this point, and in any case I _think_ that the answer is yes. Notably, I think that this rule would resolve some of the problems with stale caches that I described in this thread from September: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2022-September/081971.html I'v...

On Tue, 2020-09-08 at 12:08 +0200, Tomas Kalibera wrote: > I am not sure if I understand correctly, but if you were accessing > directly the memory of SEXPs from Go implementation instead of > calling > through exported access functions documented in WRE, that would be a > really bad idea. Of course fine for research and experimentation, but > the internal structure can and does change at any time, otherwise we > would not be able to develop nor maintain R. Such direct access > bypassing WRE would likely be a clear case for rejection in...

...d test if (i in excludes) {} However, I'm not finding a clue on how to accomplish this, if it can be done. Would someone with more R experience lend a helping hand please? A reference (so I can continue learning) would also be appreciated. Thanks... -=d David Thompson, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE, CFM Civil Engineer/Hydrologist

...ortschak wrote: > On Tue, 2020-09-08 at 12:08 +0200, Tomas Kalibera wrote: >> I am not sure if I understand correctly, but if you were accessing >> directly the memory of SEXPs from Go implementation instead of >> calling >> through exported access functions documented in WRE, that would be a >> really bad idea. Of course fine for research and experimentation, but >> the internal structure can and does change at any time, otherwise we >> would not be able to develop nor maintain R. Such direct access >> bypassing WRE would likely be a clear case...

...se to write R extensions has evolved organically over many years. The current state is certainly not ideal: There are entry points in installed headers that might be available; but to find out if they are in fact available requires reading prose text in the header files and in WRE. Trying to fine-tune wording in WRE, or add a lot of additional entries is not really a good or realistic way forward: WRE is both documentation and tutorial and more legalistic language/more complete coverage would make it less readable and still not guarantee completeness or clarity. We would b...

Hello, I am writing an R/Go interoperability tool[1] that work similarly to Rcpp; the tool takes packages written in Go and performs the necessary Go type analysis to wrap the Go code with C and R shims that allow the Go code to then be called from R. The system is largely complete (with the exception of having a clean approach to handling generalised attributes in the easy case[2] - the less

...c and result in an R > error. The necessary interface to R for allocations is only eight > functions[1]. I am not sure if I understand correctly, but if you were accessing directly the memory of SEXPs from Go implementation instead of calling through exported access functions documented in WRE, that would be a really bad idea. Of course fine for research and experimentation, but the internal structure can and does change at any time, otherwise we would not be able to develop nor maintain R. Such direct access bypassing WRE would likely be a clear case for rejection in CRAN for this...

> On 25 Apr 2015, at 13:11 , Prof J C Nash (U30A) <nashjc at uottawa.ca> wrote: > > Hendrik pointed out it was the parentheses that gave the complaint. > Single quotes and no parentheses seem to satisfy R CMD check. Perhaps > that needs to be in the WRE. Well, it is in ?toTitleCase: ...However, unknown technical terms will be capitalized unless they are single words enclosed in single quotes: names of packages and libraries should be quoted in titles. ..and it is the "single word" bit that gets you. AFAICT, the iss...

I take Duncan's point but would second the motion to have WRE clarify how static vignettes are supposed to work; it's a topic I am repeatedly confused about despite being an experienced package maintainer. If knowledgeable outsiders compiled a documentation patch would it be likely to be considered ...?? On 11/1/20 2:29 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: >...

...nderscore is allowed. >> >> Given that I've obeyed the RTFM rule, I'm wondering what to do now. > > Presumably you should ask the CRAN maintainers? That seems to > be the only possible answer -- I don't think anyone else can guess > very accurately ... From WRE: "Refer to other packages and external software in single quotes, and to book titles (and similar) in double quotes." Other non-English usage (as documented for the Description field; this inlcudes function names) can also be used in single quotes. Best, Uwe Ligges > > Ben...

On 05/08/2010 8:46 PM, David B. Thompson, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE, CFM wrote: > On Aug 5, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > >> On 05/08/2010 7:18 PM, David B. Thompson, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE, CFM wrote: >>> I'm running R 2.11.1 (MacBook Pro and OS X 10.6.4) and am trying to set a line type in the contour() function. What I did was:...

...but I think it's a bit inconsistent with what Writing R Extension says. For example, src/include/R_ext/Parse.h got a comment "So not API," but the entry point R_ParseVector is explained in Writing R Extension[1]. So, I believe it's clearly an "API" both in the sense of WRE's dialect and in an ordinary sense. Which should I believe? WRE? The source code? It might be just a coincidence, but I'm sorry if my question drove the R core team to such a too-quick clarification. I just wanted to discuss how to fix the current inconsistencies. I think the R core needs...

...evel. This sounds almost like Doxygen, although the exact syntax used to denote the entry points and the necessary comments is far from the most important detail at this point. > There are some 500 entry points in the R shared library that are in > the installed headers but not mentioned in WRE. These would need to > be reviewed and adjusted. Is there a way for outsiders to help? For example, would it help to produce the linking graph (package P links to entry points X, Y)? I understand that an entry point being unpopular doesn't mean it shouldn't be public (and the other way...

How about allowing underscore? (I believe WRE is silent on this, and I have not tried submitting a package with underscore in the title.) As I pointed out in my OP, _optim()_ works. And we have the advantage that we can distinguish package from function. The purpose of consistent editing is surely to provide the affordances that save us from...

...know if there is a size limitation on the data frames that can be included in R packages. I have a data set in a text file that I would like to include in a package I am building and it is 8.5 MB in size. Will this be problematic? Is the process for including data sets in packages documented in WRE? Thanks, dxc -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/including-data-frames-in-R-packages-tp15672705p15672705.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Debain (Linux) kernel (2.6.24) I am using NUT(network ups tools) ver. 2.2.2 to monitor my ns1200(model bn1250g) I disconnect power and use the command to force shutdown "critical bat", upsmon -c fsd, and this is what I receive. The outcome is the same if I wait for the battery to drain.(have tried on 3 ups, same model) 0 seconds "low bat" (upsmon -c fsd) 5

...: > > > Hello, I don't believe it is illegal, as ALTREP "implements an > abstraction > > underneath the C API". And is "compatible with all code which uses the > > API". > > > > Please see slide deck by Gabriel Becker, with L Tierney, M Lawrence and > T > > Kalibera. > > > > > > > https://bioconductor.org/help/course-materials/2020/BiocDevelForum/16-ALTREP > > .pdf > > < > https://bioconductor.org/help/course-materials/2020/BiocDevelForum/16-ALTREP.pdf > > > > > > ALTREP...

...ode for the details, anyway (e.g., at some very low level CAR and CDR can be any SEXP or R_NilValue, locally in some functions even C NULL). Internally, some C code uses C NULL SEXPs, but it is rare and local, and again, only the interface described in Writing R Extensions is for external use. WRE speaks about "R NULL", "R NULL object" or "C NULL" in some cases to avoid confusion, e.g. for values types as "void *". SEXPs that packages obtain using the interface in WRE should not be C NULL, only R NULL (R_NilValue). External pointers can become C NUL...

...re: No, I do _not_ think we can do > without a double copy of the _pre-made_ pdf ("input") and the _resulting_ pdf > ("output"). > > That bugs me a little too but I take it as a given as static / pre-made > vignettes are non-standard (given lack of any mention in WRE, and the pretty > obvious violation of the "spirit of the law" of vignette which is after all > made to run code, not to avoid it). Yet uses for static vignettes are pretty > valid and here we are with another clear as mud situation. > In many cases such files aren't vig...