From deepayan.sarkar at gmail.com  Tue Jun  5 21:12:57 2007
From: deepayan.sarkar at gmail.com (Deepayan Sarkar)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 12:12:57 -0700
Subject: [Rd] HTML vignette browser
In-Reply-To: <18021.4759.632558.266252@lxh5.stat.uni-muenchen.de>
References: <eb555e660706011622t4a0538a8obda2b8c4d87d49d0@mail.gmail.com>
	<18020.13934.289824.556395@lxh5.stat.uni-muenchen.de>
	<m2zm3f3b4i.fsf@ziti.local>
	<eb555e660706041125n57bb6e6dq9b251975c5f7e7de@mail.gmail.com>
	<46645F83.7000007@fhcrc.org>
	<18021.4759.632558.266252@lxh5.stat.uni-muenchen.de>
Message-ID: <eb555e660706051212q197cbaadre449d45192cda1fd@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/5/07, Friedrich Leisch <friedrich.leisch at stat.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:52:51 -0700,
> >>>>> Robert Gentleman (RG) wrote:
>
>   > Deepayan Sarkar wrote:
>   >> On 6/4/07, Seth Falcon <sfalcon at fhcrc.org> wrote:
>   >>> Friedrich Leisch <friedrich.leisch at stat.uni-muenchen.de> writes:
>   >>>> Looks good to me, and certainly something worth being added to R.
>   >>>>
>   >>>> 2 quick (related) comments:
>   >>>>
>   >>>> 1) I am not sure if we want to include links to the Latex-Sources by
>   >>>> default, those might confuse unsuspecting novices a lot. Perhaps
>   >>>> make those optional using an argument to browseVignettes(), which
>   >>>> is FALSE by default?
>   >>> I agree that the Rnw could confuse folks.  But I'm not sure it needs
>   >>> to be hidden or turned off by default...  If the .R file was also
>   >>> included then it would be less confusing I suspect as the curious
>   >>> could deduce what Rnw is about by triangulation.
>   >>>
>   >>>> 2) Instead links to .Rnw files we may want to include links to the R
>   >>>> code -> should we R CMD INSTALL a tangled version of each vignette
>   >>>> such that we can link to it? Of course it is redundant information
>   >>>> given the .Rnw, but we also have the help pages in several formats
>   >>>> ready.
>   >>> Including, by default, links to the tangled .R code seems like a
>   >>> really nice idea.  I think a lot of users who find vignettes don't
>   >>> realize that all of the code used to generate the entire document is
>   >>> available to them -- I just had a question from someone who wanted to
>   >>> know how to make a plot that appeared in a vignette, for example.
>   >>
>   >> I agree that having a Stangled .R file would be a great idea (among
>   >> other things, it would have the complete code, which many PDFs will
>   >> not).
>   >>
>   >> I don't have a strong opinion either way about linking to the .Rnw
>   >> file. It should definitely be there if the PDF file is absent (e.g.
>   >> for grid, and other packages installed with --no-vignettes, which I
>   >> always do for local installation). Maybe we can keep them, but change
>   >> the name to something more scary than "source", e.g. "LaTeX/Noweb
>   >> source".
>
>   >    I would very much prefer to keep the source, with some name, scary or
>   > not...
>
> I have no strong opinion eitehr way, just "source" may have a lot of
> people belive that is R code -> whatever "scary" name is chosen sounds
> good to me.
>
> I'll have a shot at installing the tangled code later this week (there
> is a holiday coming up on Thursday).

Great. Assuming that this will involve .../Meta/vignette.rds getting a
new column similar to "PDF", the code changes in browseVignette()
should be minimal. I'll work on a .Rd file.

-Deepayan



[Rd] HTML vignette browser
Deepayan Sarkar