From maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch  Fri Nov  4 16:56:58 2016
From: maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch (Martin Maechler)
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 16:56:58 +0100
Subject: [Rd] Running package tests and not stop on first fail
In-Reply-To: <22556.43796.305280.635245@max.nulle.part>
References: <CABE2sp66ywzHW9LFOJ-Z0mRWWro62ZFGXppiFxPVqJC0gpssdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<22555.5435.945673.692470@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<4527a200-d3a1-bbed-6687-697aabef5b89@fredhutch.org>
	<CABE2sp5Da4vc8Qksk8nD_bn-pv2+MJcrYaB-2J44HGo5eow3pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<22556.43073.490072.801815@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<22556.43796.305280.635245@max.nulle.part>
Message-ID: <22556.45002.81234.741856@stat.math.ethz.ch>

>>>>> Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org>
>>>>>     on Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:36:52 -0500 writes:

    > On 4 November 2016 at 16:24, Martin Maechler wrote: | My
    > proposed name '--no-stop-on-error' was a quick shot; if |
    > somebody has a more concise or better "English style"
    > wording | (which is somewhat compatible with all the other
    > options you see | from 'R CMD check --help'), | please
    > speak up.

    > Why not keep it simple?  The similar feature this most
    > resembles is 'make -k' and its help page has

    >        -k, --keep-going
       
    >                    Continue as much as possible after an
    > error.  While the target that failed, and those that
    > depend on it, cannot be remade, the other dependencies of
    > these targets can be processed all the same.

Yes, that would be quite a bit simpler and nice in my view.
One may think it to be too vague,
notably from Brian Pedersen's mentioning that the examples are
already continued in any case if they lead to an error.

Other opinions?



[Rd] Running package tests and not stop on first fail
Martin Maechler