>>>>> "Gorjanc" == Gorjanc Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> on Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:59:31 +0200 writes:
Gorjanc> Hello!
Gorjanc> Say I have
Gorjanc> myMethod <- function(x, ...)
Gorjanc> UseMethod("myMethod")
Gorjanc> myMethod.classA <- function(x, ...)
Gorjanc> ...
Gorjanc> myMethod.classB <- function(x, ...)
Gorjanc> ...
Gorjanc> myMethod.classC <- function(x, arg2, ...)
Gorjanc> ...
Gorjanc> and I would like to properly document these as generics. Then I
have to
Gorjanc> use in usage section
Gorjanc> \method{myMethod}{classA}(x, ...)
Gorjanc> \method{myMethod}{classB}(x, ...)
Gorjanc> \method{myMethod}{classC}(x, arg2, ...)
Gorjanc> But is it really necessary to have the same documentation for
myMethod.classA
Gorjanc> and myMethod.classB?
If you do export the methods from your package by
either
- not using NAMESPACE or
- exporting them explicitly in NAMESPACE,
then you have to document them.
Most newer "good" R packages use NAMESPACE though,
and the convention is to export only those S3 methods that have
``surprising arguments''
i.e., arguments that are not part of the generic
(where all the generic's arguments are documented).
For your situation:
1) use <pkg>/NAMESPACE
2) only export myMethod.classC \ because only that
3) only document myMethod.classC / method has surprising arguments
You can read more about all this in the "Writing R Extensions" manual.
Regards,
Martin
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
