On 12/07/2018 9:46 AM, Gábor Csárdi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:30 PM Gábor Csárdi <csardi.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:21 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I found the bug.  The tools::checkRd function only processes
\Sexpr's with "stage=render".  I think the author (who might have been
me, I forget) assumed that would imply all the earlier stages as well,
but apparently it doesn't.

So you could use that as a workaround.

I'll do some more checking, then submit a bug report and patch to Bugzilla.

Duncan Murdoch

Thanks much! I tried using stage=render, but then I get an error at
install time:

Section \Sexpr is unrecognized and will be dropped

And indeed the whole section is dropped.

Seems like there is no clean workaround here.

Thanks again,

Btw. would it make sense to just allow \Sexpr as a top level section?
Maybe here:

I think the mental model is that \Sexpr is essentially a preprocessor directive, and should disappear before rendering. It's the final result that needs to be checked. So \Sexpr should be able to produce top level sections, but it shouldn't be considered to be one.

The reason checkRd has a stages argument is because it might be working on partially processed Rd objects, rather than the original .Rd file. Each of the stages should be processed exactly once, in order.

At least if stage=render, there is no way to check if the returned
value is always a valid top level section, anyway.

But you can check if it is sometimes, which is better than nothing. Most \Sexpr content is really simple, so this is probably good enough.


If it is not a valid section (or \Sexpr returns some bad markup in
general), then the user gets a render-time error,
but with stage=render I guess one cannot do better.


R-devel@r-project.org mailing list

Reply via email to