Hello,
As prompted by B. Ripley (see below), I am transfering this over from R-User
...
For a package I am writing a function that looks like
test <- function(Argument1=NA){
# Prerequisite testing
if(!(is.na(Argument1))){
if(!(is.character(Argument1))){
stop("Wrong class.")
}
}
# Function Body
cat("Hello World\n")
}
Documentation of this is straight forward:
...
\usage{test(Argument1=NA)}
...
However writing the function could be made more concise like so:
test2 <- function(Argument1=NA_character_){
# Prerequisite testing
if(!(is.character(Argument1))){
stop("Wrong class.")
}
# Function Body
cat("Hello World\n")
}
To prevent confusion I do not want to use 'NA_character_' in the user-
exposed documentation and using
...
\usage{test2(Argument1=NA)}
...
leads to a warning reagrding a code/documentation mismatch.
Is there any way to prevent that?
Sincerely, Joh
Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Johannes Graumann wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm writing a package am running 'R CMD check' on it.
>>
>> Is there any way to make 'R CMD check' not warn about a missmatch between
>> 'NA_character_' (in the function definition) and 'NA' (in the
>> documentation)?
>
> Be consistent .... Why do you want incorrect documentation of your
> package? (It is not clear of the circumstances here: normally 1 vs 1L
> and similar are not reported if they are the only errors.)
>
> And please do note the posting guide
>
> - this is not really the correct list
> - you were asked to give an actual example with output.
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
