similar to: Best practices in developing package: From a single file

Dear Duncan, With all respect, but I strongly disagree on your stance regarding roxygen2 for multiple reasons: 1. It is in my humble opinion not correct to evaluate a tool based on the abuse of some users. It's not because people write packages with bad documentation, that roxygen2 is to blame. I use roxygen2, and I care a great deal about documentation. So I actually took a bit offense

On Tue, 2018-01-30 at 17:00 +0100, Suzen, Mehmet wrote: > Dear R developers, > > I am wondering what are the best practices for developing an R > package. I am aware of Hadley Wickham's best practice > documentation/book (http://r-pkgs.had.co.nz/).??I recall a couple of > years ago there were some tools for generating a package out of a > single file, such as using

On 30/01/2018 11:29 AM, Brian G. Peterson wrote: > On Tue, 2018-01-30 at 17:00 +0100, Suzen, Mehmet wrote: >> Dear R developers, >> >> I am wondering what are the best practices for developing an R >> package. I am aware of Hadley Wickham's best practice >> documentation/book (http://r-pkgs.had.co.nz/).??I recall a couple of >> years ago there were some

Joris, With the large caveat that I am not Duncan, and thus am not speaking for him, I can see an argument for his claim that I think is, more or less, true. roxygen2 (as far as I know as someone who uses it at least some of the time) maps to only a subset of Rd. It is the most commonly used subset, and so you can do most common things with it, but I think a pretty good case can be made for the

Dear Dr. Pfaff, Thank you for this, creating a package out of single file was my oriingal question, but not only creating and also maintaining it that way so R package is an artifact of the development process rather than "manually maintained" structure. I will have look at your sources. Best, Mehmet S?zen <suzen at acm.org> On 31 January 2018 at 15:51, Pfaff, Bernhard Dr.

> >> I am wondering what are the best practices for developing an R > >> package. I am aware of Hadley Wickham's best practice > >> documentation/book (http://r-pkgs.had.co.nz/).??I recall a couple of > >> years ago there were some tools for generating a package out of a > >> single file, such as using package.skeleton, but no auto-generated

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:24 AM, Lionel Henry <lionel at rstudio.com> wrote: > On 31 janv. 2018, at 09:08, Gabriel Becker <gmbecker at ucdavis.edu> wrote: > > > it *actively discourages* the bits it doesn't directly support. > > It may be discouraging to include Rd syntax in roxygen docs but only > because the LaTeX-like syntax of Rd is burdensome, not because

Dear R developers, I am wondering what are the best practices for developing an R package. I am aware of Hadley Wickham's best practice documentation/book (http://r-pkgs.had.co.nz/). I recall a couple of years ago there were some tools for generating a package out of a single file, such as using package.skeleton, but no auto-generated documentation. Do you know a way to generate

Dear All: stepping in late, but @Joris, if you would like to take 'from a single file' literally, have a look at: https://github.com/bpfaff/lp4rp (lp4rp: literate programming for R packages); Cheers, Bernhard ps: incidentally, within the noweb-file roxygen is employed. -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org] Im Auftrag von Joris

On 30/01/2018 4:30 PM, Kenny Bell wrote: > In response to Duncan regarding the use of roxygen2 from the point of view > of a current user, I believe the issue he brings up is one of correlation > rather than causation. Could be. However, I think editing comments in a .R file is a bit harder than editing text in a .Rd file, so I think the format discourages editing. I think it does

2017-11-30 13:26 GMT+01:00 Suzen, Mehmet <mehmet.suzen at gmail.com>: > On 30 November 2017 at 11:37, I?aki ?car <i.ucar86 at gmail.com> wrote: >> 2017-11-30 3:14 GMT+01:00 Suzen, Mehmet <mehmet.suzen at gmail.com>: >>> My understanding is that there is no inconsistency. `is` does what it >>> claims, from the documentation: >>> >>>

Mehmet, That is a loaded topic, not unlikely other topics preoccupying us these days. There is package.skeleton() in base R as you already mentioned. It drove me bonkers that it creates packages which then fail R CMD check, so I wrote a wrapper package (pkgKitten) with another helper function (kitten()) which calls the base R helper and then cleans up it---but otherwise remains faithful to it.

2017-11-30 3:14 GMT+01:00 Suzen, Mehmet <mehmet.suzen at gmail.com>: > My understanding is that there is no inconsistency. `is` does what it > claims, from the documentation: > > ?is?: With two arguments, tests whether ?object? can be treated as > from ?class2?. > > With one argument, returns all the super-classes of this > object's

>>>>> Suzen, Mehmet <msuzen at gmail.com> >>>>> on Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:27:30 +0100 writes: > Dear List, According to datacamp support team, > r-fiddle.org is not supported. We asked them to put it > down as Professor Maechler suggested it is a waste of time > for the R-help to respond to questions on something not >

Yes, data.frame is not an S4 class but is(data.frame()) finds its super-classes anyway and without the need to wrap it in asS4(). And "list' is one of the super-classes. Then is(data.frame(), "list") contradicts this. I'm not asking for a workaround. I already have one with 'class2 %in% is(object)' as reported in my original post. 'is(asS4(object), class2)'

I fully agree with Joris and Hadley on roxygen2. Additionally: I wrote and published my first package before roxygen (or roxygen2) was available. I found editing .Rd extremely terse (especially when code is updated). For example, the fact that there are no spaces allowed between } and { in \param{}{} has hurt my brain quite a few times, especially since R CMD check did not give any useful error

2017-11-30 14:13 GMT+01:00 Suzen, Mehmet <mehmet.suzen at gmail.com>: > On 30 November 2017 at 14:04, I?aki ?car <i.ucar86 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Am I supposed to read every reference on a man page just to know what >> to expect from a function? >> > > If the reference is from John Chamber, you are supposed to read it. As a joke, it's funny.

>>>>> Suzen, Mehmet <msuzen at gmail.com> >>>>> on Mon, 30 Oct 2017 16:05:18 +0100 writes: > We were talking about r-fiddle. It gives error there [*], > that's why I suggested using RCurl. >> source("https://raw.githubusercontent.com/msuzen/isingLenzMC/master/R/isingUtils.R") > ... unsupported URL scheme Error

In response to Duncan regarding the use of roxygen2 from the point of view of a current user, I believe the issue he brings up is one of correlation rather than causation. Writing my first piece of R documentation was made much easier by using roxygen2, and it shallowed the learning curve substantially. What Duncan may be observing is a general tendency of roxygen2 users to write overly concise

I don't think OP asked an unreasonable question at all. Civility! > On Jun 27, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Suzen, Mehmet <mehmet.suzen at gmail.com> wrote: > > Why don't you implement and uplad the package to CRAN? > > On 27 Jun 2017 17:45, "Chris Buddenhagen" <cbuddenhagen at gmail.com> wrote: > > Does anyone know of some code, and examples that