From Manuel.Eugster at stat.uni-muenchen.de  Thu Mar 20 08:12:32 2008
From: Manuel.Eugster at stat.uni-muenchen.de (Manuel.Eugster at stat.uni-muenchen.de)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:12:32 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [Rd] Roxygen
In-Reply-To: <20080320002526.GA20903@klutometis.wikitex.org>
References: <47DFD659.40506@stat.uni-muenchen.de>
	<20080320002526.GA20903@klutometis.wikitex.org>
Message-ID: <1505.194.208.139.117.1205997152.squirrel@webmail.lrz-muenchen.de>

>> It is desirable that these tags and their syntax and semantics be
>> compatible with those used by Doxygen and Javadoc, but extended with
>> tags important for R specific things.
>
> Doxygen, in particular, has some tags that are meaningless in R
> (@category and @protocol come to mind); wouldn't it be worthwhile,
> therefore, to start with a subset of Rd?
>
> Thinks like @name and @format could be gleaned from the code; and it
> seems like preserving other Rd names would uphold the "principle of
> least surprise."
>

Yes, actually I did not meant that you have to take the union of Javadoc
and Doxygen keywords and try to fit it into R. Start with the things
from R documentation, extend it with usefull R-specific keywords (like
@export). And keep in mind that there may be users which use Doxygen
and Javadoc and we want to uphold the "principle of least surprise". :-)


Manuel.



[Rd] Roxygen
Manuel.Eugster at stat.uni-muenchen.de