From deepayan at stat.wisc.edu  Mon Aug 16 17:33:38 2004
From: deepayan at stat.wisc.edu (Deepayan Sarkar)
Date: Mon Aug 16 17:33:50 2004
Subject: [Rd] promptClass("numeric")
In-Reply-To: <200408161643560629.01928335@mail.math.fu-berlin.de>
References: <200408161554110262.49B4F510@mail.math.fu-berlin.de>
	<200408160927.47055.deepayan@stat.wisc.edu>
	<200408161643560629.01928335@mail.math.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <200408161033.38255.deepayan@stat.wisc.edu>

On Monday 16 August 2004 09:43, Wolski wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As I said its not really a Problem. Its just an inconsistency which
> need is not apparent to me.
>
> You can alternatively use promptClass or promptMethods to document
> methods.
>
> promptClass always generates a section:
> >>>>\section{Methods}{
> >>>>   \describe{
> >>>>     \item{coerce}{\code{signature(from = "ANY", to =
> >>>> "numeric")}: ... } }
> >>>> }
>
> So you can use promptClass to provide a short description to your
> methods.
>
> I would use promptMethods if the methods are elaborated (like a the
> plotting methods in package lattice) and I would like to to provide
> intensive and extensive explanation with examples.
>
> But in case if my method "foo" which is so simple (it just prints
> "foo") I would like to use promptClass.

Yes, I should have RTFM before replying. On closer inspection, this 
seems to be a feature (?) of the "numeric" class (and perhaps other 
primitive classes). It works as you expect for a freshly defined formal 
class.

Deepayan


[Rd] promptClass("numeric")
Deepayan Sarkar