Rolf Turner <r.tur...@auckland.ac.nz> writes: > On 01/06/14 03:52, Thorsten Jolitz wrote: >> >> Hi List, >> >> it seems that .Rd files are just an intermediary format used for >> exporting to txt, html and latex when creating an R package. >> >> How flexible is the R package mechanism? Would it possible to skip .Rd >> files alltogether, write the docs with another tool (e.g. Emacs >> Org-mode), export them to txt, html and latex, and include these >> exported files in the package? >> >> Or does the R package mechanism simply expect the .Rd files to be there, >> so that there is no way avoiding the .Rd format? > > (1) I am not an expert, but my reading of "Writing R Extension > Packages" indicates to me that, yes, .Rd format is necessary.
I thought that too, but wasn't completely sure > (2) Why would you want to fuck things up by dodging around .Rd ("R > documentation") files? Amongst other things, these allow for > consistency cross-checking by the package checking facility. Thats indeed a good reason to stick with the .Rd files > (3) The .Rd syntax is easy to learn and quite powerful. Get off your > duff and learn it. .Rd syntax in not really intimidating, thats not the problem. Thanks for the answer anyway. -- cheers, Thorsten ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.