Suggestion: help(<package name>)
The reason I like .Rd files is that I can run the examples easily and, as Martin points out, one does not need to learn a new syntax. How about adding the following to R-exts: "We encourage the package developer to include a file named foo.package.Rd in the "man" directory, to provide a terse overview of the foo package. This Rd file is intended to be the first port of call for a new user of the package, and should provide (or point to) working examples of the package's functionality. It may also provide details or rationale for the package's structure, if non-standard; and perhaps document other features of the package that might escape a new user's notice. See package foo for an example" and package.skeleton() could be modified to write a skeleton version of foo.package.Rd and put it in the man directory. best wishes everyone rksh Duncan writes:
My proposal (modified following the suggestions I've heard so far) is as follows: - to check that a couple of help topic aliases exist (<pkg>.package and <pkg>) - to recommend that <pkg>.package contain general information about the package, and that <pkg> be an alias for it, if it isn't used for some other purpose. - to write promptPackage() to help create an initial version of <pkg>.package.Rd. It can get some information from the DESCRIPTION file; perhaps it could go looking for a vignette, or the INDEX, or - to modify the other help system tools to make use of this (e.g. the package:<pkg> heading on a page would become a link to the <pkg>.package alias, etc.)
Martin:
And as much as I do like (and read) the vignettes that are available, I also do agree that writing one other *.Rd file is easier for many new package authors than to write a vignette -- the package author already had to learn *.Rd syntax anyway -- and it's nice to be able to produce something where hyperlinks to the other existing reference material (ie. help pages) just works out of the box.
Duncan again:
Currently R has 3 types of help: the .Rd files in the man directory (which are converted into plain text, HTML, compiled HTML, LaTex, DVI, PDF, etc), the vignettes, and unstructured files in inst/doc. We currently require .Rd files for every function and data object. Adding a requirement to also document the package that way is not all that much of a burden, and will automatically give all those output formats I listed above. It will help to solve the often-complained about problem of packages that contain no overview at all. (Requiring a vignette and giving a way to display it would also do that, but I think requiring a .Rd file is less of a burden, and for anyone who has gone to the trouble of creating a vignette, gives a natural place for a link to it. Vignettes aren't used as much as they should be, because they are hidden away where users don't see them.)
-- Robin Hankin Uncertainty Analyst National Oceanography Centre, Southampton European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK tel 023-8059-7743