> Duncan Murdoch writes:
> On 06/01/2023 5:25 a.m., Kevin Coombes wrote:
>> I am fairly certain that the check for documentation is really just a
>> check for the presence of the function name in an "alias" line.
> Yes, that's what the test does, and that's fine. The problem is with
> the
On 06/01/2023 5:25 a.m., Kevin Coombes wrote:
I am fairly certain that the check for documentation is really just a
check for the presence of the function name in an "alias" line.
Yes, that's what the test does, and that's fine. The problem is with
the usage test in tools::codoc(). If I
I am fairly certain that the check for documentation is really just a check
for the presence of the function name in an "alias" line. My circumstantial
evidence, from a package in the early stages of development, came from
changing the name of a function. I updated everything else (usage,
On 05/01/2023 10:10 p.m., Deepayan Sarkar wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 1:49 AM Duncan Murdoch wrote:
I'm in the process of a fairly large overhaul of the exports from the
rgl package, with an aim of simplifying maintenance of the package.
During this work, I came across the reverse
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 1:49 AM Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>
> I'm in the process of a fairly large overhaul of the exports from the
> rgl package, with an aim of simplifying maintenance of the package.
> During this work, I came across the reverse dependency geomorph that
> calls the rgl.primitive
