On 05/31/2014 03:52 PM, Yihui Xie wrote:
Note the test has been done once in weave, since R CMD check will try
to rebuild vignettes. The problem is whether the related tools in R
should change their tangle utilities so we can **repeat** the test,
and it seems the answer is "no" in my eyes.
Regards,
Yihui
--
Yihui Xie <xieyi...@gmail.com>
Web: http://yihui.name
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Gabriel Becker <gmbec...@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Yihui Xie <x...@yihui.name> wrote:
Hi Kevin,
I tend to adopt Henrik's idea, i.e., to provide vignette
engines that just ignore tangle. At the moment, it seems R CMD check
It is very useful, pedagogically and when reproducing analyses, to be able to
source() the tangled .R code into an R session, analogous to running example
code with example(). The documentation for ?Stangle does read
(Code inside '\Sexpr{}' statements is ignored by 'Stangle'.)
So my 'vote' (recognizing that I don't have one of those) is to incorporate
\Sexpr{} expressions into the tangled code, or to continue to flag use of Sexpr
with side effects as errors (indirectly, by source()ing the tangled code),
rather than writing engines that ignore tangle.
It is very valuable to all parties to write a vignette with code that is fully
evaluated; otherwise, it is too easy for bit rot to seep in, or to 'fake' it in
a way that seems innocent but is misleading.
Martin Morgan
is comfortable with vignettes that do not have corresponding R
scripts, and I hope these R scripts will not become mandatory in the
future.
I'm not sure this is the right approach. This would essentially make the
test optional based on decisions by the package author. I'm not arguing in
favor if this particular test, but if package authors are able to turn a
test off then the test loses quite a bit of it's value.
I think that R CMD check has done a great deal for the R community by
presenting a uniform, minimum "barrier to entry" for R packages. Allowing
package developers to alter the tests it does (other than the obvious case
of their own unit tests) would remove that.
That having been said, it seems to me that tangle-like utilities should have
the option of extracting inline code, and that during R CMD check that
option should *always* be turned on. That would solve the problem in
question while retaining the test would it not?
~G
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
--
Computational Biology / Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
1100 Fairview Ave. N.
PO Box 19024 Seattle, WA 98109
Location: Arnold Building M1 B861
Phone: (206) 667-2793
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
