From jfox@McMaster.ca  Fri Dec 13 00:54:03 2002
From: jfox@McMaster.ca (John Fox)
Date: Fri Dec 13 00:54:03 2002
Subject: [Rd] Flat documentation?
In-Reply-To: <3DF8C951.FB17F34A@umsanet.edu.bo>
References: <5.0.2.1.0.20021211143041.02872480@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>
 <b5vcvu0tp8ab3r1o9r9m9c1rqv4rke2llp@4ax.com>
 <3DF7571E.20E2B822@bank-banque-canada.ca>
 <5.0.2.1.0.20021211143041.02872480@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>
 <8e3hvu4rvnimgh0bu798itlcbhhdeuv1c2@4ax.com>
 <5.1.0.14.2.20021212092533.01ddb880@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>
 <qbbhvu825pgqghjjn76cj8q8kckknda02l@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20021212184054.00aed228@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>

Dear Kjetil,

At 01:37 PM 12/12/2002 -0400, kjetil halvorsen wrote:

>Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>
> >
> > Storage isn't a problem, I'm thinking of the user interface.  I
> > normally write my functions in a text editor, then source them into R.
> > Other people use a workspace as the primary place to store functions.
> > Both methods should allow for easy addition of lightweight
> > documentation.
>
>When functions are stored in workspaces, and options keep.source=FALSE
>are used, it will not work to write the documentation as comments in the
>function. So attributes seems preferable, if one goes for
>light-weight documentation.
>

It occurs to me that this behaviour could be modified so that comments at 
the beginning of a function are kept in any event (perhaps in an attribute).

It seems to me that there are lots of simple ways of implementing the ideas 
that we've been discussing and that any one of them would probably be 
reasonable and better than the current situation.

Regards,
  John
____________________________
John Fox
Department of Sociology
McMaster University
email: jfox@mcmaster.ca
web: http://www.socsci.mcmaster.ca/jfox



[Rd] Flat documentation?
John Fox