On 6/4/07, Seth Falcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Friedrich Leisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Looks good to me, and certainly something worth being added to R. > > > > 2 quick (related) comments: > > > > 1) I am not sure if we want to include links to the Latex-Sources by > > default, those might confuse unsuspecting novices a lot. Perhaps > > make those optional using an argument to browseVignettes(), which > > is FALSE by default? > > I agree that the Rnw could confuse folks. But I'm not sure it needs > to be hidden or turned off by default... If the .R file was also > included then it would be less confusing I suspect as the curious > could deduce what Rnw is about by triangulation. > > > 2) Instead links to .Rnw files we may want to include links to the R > > code -> should we R CMD INSTALL a tangled version of each vignette > > such that we can link to it? Of course it is redundant information > > given the .Rnw, but we also have the help pages in several formats > > ready. > > Including, by default, links to the tangled .R code seems like a > really nice idea. I think a lot of users who find vignettes don't > realize that all of the code used to generate the entire document is > available to them -- I just had a question from someone who wanted to > know how to make a plot that appeared in a vignette, for example.
I agree that having a Stangled .R file would be a great idea (among other things, it would have the complete code, which many PDFs will not). I don't have a strong opinion either way about linking to the .Rnw file. It should definitely be there if the PDF file is absent (e.g. for grid, and other packages installed with --no-vignettes, which I always do for local installation). Maybe we can keep them, but change the name to something more scary than "source", e.g. "LaTeX/Noweb source". -Deepayan ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
