[Rd] Top level \Sexpr and R CMD check

[Gábor Csárdi]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:30 PM Gábor Csárdi <csardi.gabor using gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:21 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan using 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:
>
> Warning: /private/var/folders/59/0gkmw1yj2w7bf2dfc3jznv5w0000gn/T/RtmpCG4Qz9/R.INSTALLec4743ba8cf4/ps/man/ps_handle.Rd:45-48:
> 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,
> G.

Btw. would it make sense to just allow \Sexpr as a top level section?
Maybe here:
https://github.com/wch/r-source/blob/98e9999eb0e8616550632a1675e4d2dbe630d5e4/src/library/tools/R/RdConv2.R#L500-L503

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

G.