From kleiweg@let.rug.nl  Thu Dec 20 00:57:23 2001
From: kleiweg@let.rug.nl (Peter Kleiweg)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:57:23 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [Rd] dots and ldots in R 1.4.0
In-Reply-To: <x2u1umg2ls.fsf@blueberry.kubism.ku.dk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0112200132400.429-100000@kleigh.nl>

Peter Dalgaard BSA scribeva...

> Peter Kleiweg <kleiweg@let.rug.nl> writes:
>
> > > > Am I doing something wrong?
> > >
> > > Not really, the checks got stricter. You just need to supply a
> > > line describing what the "..." arguments are for.
> >
> > That is what I did, in \arguments, using \item{\ldots}{}.
>
> Sorry, misunderstood.
>
> It wants \dots. \ldots are for the triple-dots in running text that
> get set in the text font.

I have been looking at the tex-version of the manuals. I see
that both "\dots" in "\usage", and "\ldots" in
"\arguments{\item{\ldots" get replaced by "...". And just
putting "..." in the manual sources and then running
`R CMD check' gives "OK". So why would I need to use \dots in
these places?

-- 
Peter Kleiweg
http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg/



-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


[Rd] dots and ldots in R 1.4.0
Peter Kleiweg