From Thomas.Petzoldt at tu-dresden.de  Mon Oct  6 11:46:00 2008
From: Thomas.Petzoldt at tu-dresden.de (Thomas Petzoldt)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:46:00 +0200
Subject: [Rd] why is \alias{anRpackage} not mandatory?
Message-ID: <48E9DE58.6070303@tu-dresden.de>

Dear R developers,

if one uses package.skeleton() to create a new package, then a file 
anRpackage.Rd with the following entries is prepared:

\name{anRpackage-package}
\alias{anRpackage-package}
\alias{anRpackage}
\docType{package}


Packages created this way have a definite entry or overview page, so:

?anRpackage

gives new users of a certain package a pointer where to start reading.

This is similar for packages which have the same name as their main 
workhorse function, e.g. zoo or nlme, but there are many packages which 
don't have an \alias{anRpackage}.

"Writing R Extensions", sec. 2.1.4 says:

"Packages may have an overview man page with an \alias pkgname-package, 
e.g. `utils-package' for the utils package, when package?pkgname will 
open that help page. If a topic named pkgname does not exist in another 
Rd file, it is helpful to use this as an additional \alias."

My question: what speaks against making this sentence more pronounced 
and why not NOTE-ing a missing package alias in the package check?


Thomas Petzoldt



-- 
Thomas Petzoldt
Technische Universitaet Dresden
Institut fuer Hydrobiologie
01062 Dresden
GERMANY

http://tu-dresden.de/Members/thomas.petzoldt



[Rd] why is \alias{anRpackage} not mandatory?
Thomas Petzoldt