Skip to content

\description in Rd files

3 messages · Brian Ripley, robin hankin

#
Hi

I make a point of going through my packages every so often and perusing
the check results on CRAN.

The aylmer package generates a warning (under R-2.9.0) for an Rd file 
which I think is OK.
The package is clean under R-2.8.1.

Specifically, the warning is:

    * checking Rd files ... OK
    * checking Rd files against version 2 parser ... *WARNING*
      *** error on file ./man/icons.Rd
      Error in parse_Rd("./man/icons.Rd", encoding = "unknown") :
      ./man/icons.Rd: 16:3: unexpected section header at
      15: :
      16: \description

      problem found in ?icons.Rd?
      The Rdversion 2 parser is experimental, but almost all reports are
      correct.



And the relevant file lines in icons.Rd are:

14 The six icons were used in this study were:
15 \description{
16 \item[PB] polar bears, which face extinction through loss of ice
17 floe hunting grounds
18 \item[NB] the Norfolk Broads, which flood due to intense rainfall
19 events
20 \item[LF] London flooding, as a result of sea level rise
21 \item[THC] the Thermo-haline circulation, which may slow or stop as
22 a result of anthropogenic modification of the hydrological cycle
23 \item[OA] oceanic acidification as a result of anthropogenic emissions
24 of carbon dioxide
25 \item[WAIS] the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is calving into the sea
26 as a result of climate change
27 }



[this using nl]
#
I think you meant \describe ....
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, Robin Hankin wrote:

            
Did you actually look at the help under 2.8.1: it is I am sure not what 
you intended?  Oops ....

  
    
#
Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
Ouch.   aylmer.dvi  looks fine under  R-2.8.1 but indeed the text 
versions are not as intended.

I guess that the machinery for text documentation is less tolerant of  
inappropriate LaTeX-isms.

All works fine with \describe in place of \description.

thanks again

rksh