Hi,
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Thomas Friedrichsmeier
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sunday 26 September 2010, Prasenjit Kapat wrote:
>> Yeah this kind of brings back the argument of moving these into
>> internal.R, or at least move the help links to a
>> rkward_for_rkward_devs.rkh page.
>
> yes, perh
Hi,
On Sunday 26 September 2010, Prasenjit Kapat wrote:
> Yeah this kind of brings back the argument of moving these into
> internal.R, or at least move the help links to a
> rkward_for_rkward_devs.rkh page.
yes, perhaps that is a good idea to create such a "rkward_for_rkward_devs"
page, so as n
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Thomas Friedrichsmeier
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Saturday 25 September 2010, Prasenjit Kapat wrote:
>> I've added a rk.list.plugins (...) to public.R, I hope it is not
>> adding a "new feature."
>
> well, it's sort of a new feature, but the important point is that i
Hi,
On Saturday 25 September 2010, Prasenjit Kapat wrote:
> I've added a rk.list.plugins (...) to public.R, I hope it is not
> adding a "new feature."
well, it's sort of a new feature, but the important point is that it looks
safe to add without breaking anything.
> While documenting rk.call.pl
Hi,
Thomas:
Can you take a look at rk.sync.Rd and rk.call.plugin.Rd, esp the TODO places.
I've added a rk.list.plugins (...) to public.R, I hope it is not
adding a "new feature." While documenting rk.call.plugin, I felt that
the user generally will have no idea of what goes as the first
argument
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Thomas Friedrichsmeier
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Monday 20 September 2010, Prasenjit Kapat wrote:
>> Does it now look closer to what you have in mind? (It is incomplete
>> still...)
>
> Yes, thanks! For my taste you have quite a lot of links in the "See also"
> sect
Hi!
On Monday 20 September 2010, Prasenjit Kapat wrote:
> Does it now look closer to what you have in mind? (It is incomplete
> still...)
Yes, thanks! For my taste you have quite a lot of links in the "See also"
section. I'd omit at least ones like "invisible" and "options", which would
relate
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Thomas Friedrichsmeier
wrote:
>
> I think using an R style documentation might be a good idea after all. First,
Does it now look closer to what you have in mind? (It is incomplete still...)
Regards,
--
Prasenjit
---
Hi,
On Sunday 19 September 2010, Prasenjit Kapat wrote:
> As some of you may have seen from the trunk, I have started to add
> some documentation for the functions in public.R and
> public_graphics.R. I am writing the documentation as a rkh file which
> can be accessed from F1 > RKWard for Users >
