Seemingly bizarre behavior in R CMD check
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Bartz, Kevin wrote in part:
Apparently, R keeps very stringent requirements on its documentation's usage field. If it's anything other than myFunc(arg1, arg2...), codoc won't parse it correctly in its tempfiles. And the particular S code I was translating used chiefly example calls in its documentation's usage fields. Is this formatting an intended necessity? I know it ensures consistency but it's too often the source of cryptic errors.
This is intended. It makes sure that the help page contains all the arguments in the correct order (for positional matching), which is usually a good idea. You can override the check in cases where it is not useful to have this sort of usage example, by providing the function prototype in a \synopsis section instead. help(abline) does this because the actual prototype would be more confusing than what is given. However, quite a lot of user-written S code comes with help pages that don't document all the arguments or have the order of arguments wrong. codoc at least checks this. In most cases it really is better to put examples in the \examples section and usage in the \usage section. -thomas Thomas Lumley Asst. Professor, Biostatistics tlumley at u.washington.edu University of Washington, Seattle -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._