Sorry for late reply. I like the stop-on-error. Thanks for merging. Glad to be R contributor!
On 4 November 2016 at 09:42, Oliver Keyes <ironho...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, 4 November 2016, Martin Maechler <maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch> > wrote: >> >> >>>>> Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> >> >>>>> on Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:36:52 -0500 writes: >> >> > On 4 November 2016 at 16:24, Martin Maechler wrote: | 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. >> >> > Why not keep it simple? The similar feature this most >> > resembles is 'make -k' and its help page has >> >> > -k, --keep-going >> >> > Continue as much as possible after an >> > error. While the target that failed, and those that >> > depend on it, cannot be remade, the other dependencies of >> > these targets can be processed all the same. >> >> Yes, that would be quite a bit simpler and nice in my view. >> One may think it to be too vague, > > > Mmn, I would agree on vagueness (and it breaks the pattern set by other > flags of human-readability). Deep familiarity with make is probably not > something we should ask of everyone who needs to test a package, too. > > I quite like stop-on-error=true (exactly the same as the previous suggestion > but shaves off some characters by inverting the Boolean) > >> notably from Brian Pedersen's mentioning that the examples are >> already continued in any case if they lead to an error. >> >> Other opinions? >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel