From pgilbert@bank-banque-canada.ca  Thu Jan 21 15:07:48 1999
From: pgilbert@bank-banque-canada.ca (Paul Gilbert)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 10:07:48 -0500
Subject: Rd files
References: <99Jan20.160839est.13457@mailgate.bank-banque-canada.ca> <13990.63406.547337.590199@galadriel.ci.tuwien.ac.at>
Message-ID: <99Jan21.103020est.13453@mailgate.bank-banque-canada.ca>

Friedrich

Thanks for the clarifications and update.

>I'm currently starting (the long announced, but now it's real)
>re-write of Rdconv by making it module-oriented and using Text::Delim
>as extraction engine (as suggested by Doug quite some time ago).

So I guess I should wait to do my conversion.

PG> - Must there be separate .Rd files for each function or can they be combined

PG> into one large file?

>Yes, currently the idea is to have one Rd file per html/help file. I
>never thought about it though ... do many people want to be able to
>have all documentation in one big file?

I don't really care too much about this, I just wanted to make sure I understand
it. However,  it may not be too difficult allow a large .Rd file and have the
build decompose it using the /name{..}. I currently keep many functions in one
file along with their documentation separated by /*   */. I separate this into
the .R and .Rd files with an awk script. So the question for me is whether I
have to separate the .Rd file further or is the R build going to do it. I guess
I would prefer that the R build do it, as I think others may use it this way
too, but I think I can do it fairly easily.

Paul

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
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 files
Paul Gilbert