Skip to content

[R-pkg-devel] Issue of itemize in man file

4 messages · Ivan Krylov, Vincent van Hees, John C Nash

John C Nash
# 
I'm doing a major update of the optimx package and things were going relatively
smoothly until this weekend when files that have passed win-builder gave NOTEs
on r-devel for several manual (.Rd) files.
The NOTE is of the form
The source of this looks like

   \item{msg}{A text string giving information about the result of the function check: Messages and
     the corresponding values of \code{excode} are:
       \itemize{
         \item{fnchk OK;}{ \code{excode} = 0;
                        \code{infeasible} = FALSE}
         \item{Function returns INADMISSIBLE;}
                     { \code{excode} = -1; \code{infeasible} = TRUE}
      ...
     }

I've not seen this before, nor does a search give any hits.

Does anyone have any ideas? Or is this a glitch in r-devel as things are tried out.?

I don't get the NOTE on win-builder R-release nor on local R CMD check. Note that the
\itemize is to give a second-level list i.e., for expanding output of one of the
\value objects returned, namely the return codes.

Best,

John Nash
Ivan Krylov
# 
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 10:43:08 -0400
J C Nash <profjcnash at gmail.com> wrote:

            

      
      
      
    

        
The \item command inside \itemize{} lists doesn't take arguments.
Did you mean \describe{} instead of \itemize{}?

  
    

      
      
    

  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      Vincent van Hees
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
I ran into the same issue last week with .Rd files that were
previously accepted on CRAN and concluded that the package checks are
becoming more critical about this aspect of Rd syntax, which is good.

To reproduce the note outside R-devel and by that identify which files
in your package are affected you could run for every Rd file in your
man folder:

tools::checkRd(Rd = file, listOK = FALSE)

Vincent

        
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 at 16:53, Ivan Krylov <krylov.r00t at gmail.com> wrote:

            

      
      
      
    

        

      
      
    

  
  


  


      

    

    

      
      

        


  

        

      John C Nash
    

    

      
      #
    

  


  

      
Thanks. That seems to be the issue. Also vincent's suggestion of checkRd.

JN

        
On 2023-10-22 10:52, Ivan Krylov wrote: