>>>>> Brian G Peterson <br...@braverock.com> >>>>> on Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:37:18 -0500 writes:
> On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 16:24 +0100, Martin Maechler wrote: >> >>>>> Jan Gorecki <j.gore...@wit.edu.pl> >>>>> on Fri, 4 >> Nov 2016 11:20:37 +0000 writes: >> >> > Martin, I submitted very simple patch on > >> https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17176 >> >> > Herve, While I like your idea, I prefer to keep my >> patch > simple, it is now exactly what Martin mentions. I >> think it > is a good start that can eventually be >> extended later for > what you are asking. >> >> I tend to agree; this seems indeed much easier than I >> anticipated. Thank you, Jan! >> >> I'm testing a version which uses the logical variable >> 'stop_on_error' rather than 'no_stop_on_error' (because >> !no_stop_on_error is hard to mentally parse quickly). >> >> My proposed name '--no-stop-on-error' was a quick shot; >> if somebody has a more concise or better "English style" >> wording (which is somewhat compatible with all the other >> options you see from 'R CMD check --help'), please speak >> up. > I might suggest > --stop-tests-on-error > with default=TRUE to match current functionality. Thank you, Brian. though that would be less concise and I think less matching the 'R CMD check' philosophy with many '--no-*' options to turn *off* defaults. Note that most options have no " = <value>" part, because they are binary and I think that's easiest for use (when the 'binary' case is general enough). Also R CMD check --help ends saying "By default, all test sections are turned on." which does fit the use of all those '--no-*' options. OTOH, we also have '--ignore-vignettes' so we could consider --ignore-tests-errors ? > This might avoid any confusion related to the behavior of > continuing to run examples on error in R CMD check. You are quite right on that, indeed. Martin > Regards, > Brian ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel