Firstly: thanks to Ben for the help/fix.
I know nobody asked, but.
Having to guess where the documentation is just to refer to it is just going to
be really brittle going forward. Previous: if the function you referred to
existed in the package you were fine. Future: if don't correctly specify
On 09/08/2020 2:04 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:
This might have to be \link[utils:debugger]{dump.frames} now, i.e.
explicitly linking to the man page on which dump.frames is found
rather than following aliases?
It's always had to be that way for reliable links. It's just that the
QC checks are
This might have to be \link[utils:debugger]{dump.frames} now, i.e.
explicitly linking to the man page on which dump.frames is found
rather than following aliases?
On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 2:01 PM John Mount wrote:
>
> With "R Under development (unstable) (2020-07-05 r78784)" (Windows)
>
On 09/08/2020 2:59 p.m., John Mount wrote:
Firstly: thanks to Ben for the help/fix.
I know nobody asked, but.
Having to guess where the documentation is just to refer to it is just going to
be really brittle going forward. Previous: if the function you referred to
existed in the package you
On 8/9/20 3:08 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 09/08/2020 2:59 p.m., John Mount wrote:
Firstly: thanks to Ben for the help/fix.
I know nobody asked, but.
Having to guess where the documentation is just to refer to it is
just going to be really brittle going forward. Previous: if the
function
On 09/08/2020 3:15 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:
On 8/9/20 3:08 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 09/08/2020 2:59 p.m., John Mount wrote:
Firstly: thanks to Ben for the help/fix.
I know nobody asked, but.
Having to guess where the documentation is just to refer to it is
just going to be really brittle
With "R Under development (unstable) (2020-07-05 r78784)" (Windows)
documentation references such as "\link[utils]{dump.frames}" trigger "Non-file
package-anchored link(s) in documentation object" warnings even if the package
is in your "Imports."
Is that not the right form? Is there any way
