[R] Writing R packages in an easier way?

[Spencer Graves]

       Please excuse my failure to provide a proper reference.  I  
refered only to providing pro forma documentation files that contained 
neither documentation nor examples, unit  tests etc.  I thought my 
comment was consistent with your comment that, "I only mention this 
possibility for the sake of intellectual completeness of the discussion 
of this topic.  It of course totally subverts the whole philosophy of 
package construction in R, so I wouldn't dream of using it myself."


       I definitely did NOT intend to refer to "roxygen", and I'm sorry 
if I gave that impression.


       Spencer


On 2/11/2011 8:52 PM, Jeff Newmiller wrote:
> I may be missing something here, but what does preferring roxygen over Rd files have to do with Fortran, spaghetti code, test suites, or functionality? Do you even know what roxygen is?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jeff Newmiller The ..... ..... Go Live...
> DCN:<jdnewmil at dcn.davis.ca.us>  Basics: ##.#. ##.#. Live Go...
> Live: OO#.. Dead: OO#.. Playing
> Research Engineer (Solar/Batteries O.O#. #.O#. with
> /Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#. .OO#. rocks...1k
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> Spencer Graves<spencer.graves at structuremonitoring.com>  wrote:
>
> That's a procedure for those who want to write Fortran in R, who love debugging spaghetti and refuse to be bothered with silly things like test suites and any firm notion of functionality. Spencer On 2/11/2011 7:06 PM, David Scott wrote:>  On 12/02/2011 1:27 p.m., Yihui Xie wrote:>>  I guess Emacs + ESS + roxygen might be the easiest way to write an R>>  package. Writing or modifying Rd files/templates, in my eyes, is>>  really time-consuming and the Rd files are difficult to maintain>>  (unless you really have a good memory). I became reluctant to maintain>>  my R packages simply because I felt painful to maintain the>>  documentation. After I learned a bit about roxygen and ESS a few>>  months ago, several of my packages came back to life again (e.g. this>>  picture is a piece of evidence:>>  https://github.com/yihui/animation/graphs/impact). The feeling was>>  probably like when Dr Harrell switched from SAS to S (see>>  library(fortunes); fortune('I quit using SAS')).>>  >>
> Anyway, prompt() and package.skeleton() are very helpful in the short>>  run.>>  >>  Regards,>>  Yihui>>  -- >  >  There is also the slackers way of producing R packages without writing>  any documentation.>  >  You create a file PackageName-internal.Rd in which you then put the>  name of the package and all the functions as aliases:>  >  \name{PackageName-internal}>  \alias{function1}>  \alias{function2}>  .>  .>  .>  >  \title{Internal PackageName objects}>  \description{Internal PackageName objects.}>  \details{These are not to be called by the user.}>  \keyword{internal}>  >  >  I only mention this possibility for the sake of intellectual>  completeness of the discussion of this topic.>  >  It of course totally subverts the whole philosophy of package>  construction in R, so I wouldn't dream of using it myself.>  >  David Scott>_____________________________________________
> R-help at 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.
>