similar to: Fwd: Re: Best practices in developing package:

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

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

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

On 31/01/2018 6:33 AM, Joris Meys wrote: > 3. given your criticism, I'd like your opinion on where I can improve > the documentation of https://github.com/CenterForStatistics-UGent/pim. > I'm currently busy updating the help files for a next release on CRAN, > so your input is more than welcome. After this invitation I sent some private comments to Joris. I would say his

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 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

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 of roxygen. It is still handy to have inlined Rd as a backup and we do use it for the cases where we need finer

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

> >> 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

It is indeed a matter of what the developer is comfortable with and the one-stop solution provided by devtools is difficult to beat. This may also vary across projects. I use EMACS/ESS with and without roxygen2. In some cases EMACS/ESS+Org mode provides stunning benefits. Updating "usage" statements in Rd files was mentioned several times. Rdpack::reprompt() does this and more for

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

Almost all of the coxme package and an increasing amount of the survival package are now written in noweb, i.e., .Rnw files. It would be nice to process these using the Sweave function + a special driver, which I can do using a modified version of Sweave. The primary change is to allow the following type of construction <<coxme>> coxme <- function(formula, data, subset, blah blah

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 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.

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 Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: > 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

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: > On 31/01/2018 6:33 AM, Joris Meys wrote: > > 3. given your criticism, I'd like your opinion on where I can improve the >> documentation of https://github.com/CenterForStatistics-UGent/pim. I'm >> currently busy updating the help files for a next release on CRAN, so your

On 30/01/2018 11:39 PM, Hadley Wickham wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Duncan Murdoch > <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: >> 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 >>>

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.

While checking packages against R 2.13.0-beta on Windows, I have run into a few strange error messages related to copying files. The errors all relate to file.copy() and have the form of: Error in Sys.chmod(to[okay], file.info(from[okay])$mode, TRUE) : 'mode' must be of length at least one After half a day of tinkering, the best reproducible example I can come up with involves using