From h.wickham at gmail.com  Mon Apr 10 15:38:22 2006
From: h.wickham at gmail.com (hadley wickham)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:38:22 -0500
Subject: [Rd] Should demo files be run as part of R CMD check?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604101028200.4997@gannet.stats.ox.ac.uk>
References: <f8e6ff050604071420g7f97d56cn6c4fe772002f8f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0604071432190.11916@homer23.u.washington.edu>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0604101028200.4997@gannet.stats.ox.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <f8e6ff050604100638m6688410fxa1765fa47e7eab18@mail.gmail.com>

> > The rationale may be that a demo is entitled to assume it is being run
> > interactively.  Checking demo(tkdensity), for example, would be
> > unproductive.
>
> Also, it is easy for a package author to arrange to check the demos by a
> test in the package's tests directory.

Thanks for your comments - I hadn't considered the case of interactive
demos, and as you say it is easy enough to add these checks by using a
test in the tests directory.    Would it be helpful to provide a short
note to this effect in writing R extensions?  I would be happy to
provide a diff against the latest source.

Hadley



[Rd] Should demo files be run as part of R CMD check?
hadley wickham