From deep@y@n@@@rk@r @end|ng |rom gm@||@com  Fri Jan  6 04:10:42 2023
From: deep@y@n@@@rk@r @end|ng |rom gm@||@com (Deepayan Sarkar)
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2023 08:40:42 +0530
Subject: [Rd] Not documenting a function and not getting a check error?
In-Reply-To: <ba02397f-c3f1-bb53-18c8-31aa91f498c2@gmail.com>
References: <ba02397f-c3f1-bb53-18c8-31aa91f498c2@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADfFDC5KKOt1GJh8SEZXkQJkDF4O7AVze3TLhE4k7ymGfabdJg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 1:49 AM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm in the process of a fairly large overhaul of the exports from the
> rgl package, with an aim of simplifying maintenance of the package.
> During this work, I came across the reverse dependency geomorph that
> calls the rgl.primitive function.
>
> I had forgotten that rgl.primitive was still exported:  I've been
> thinking of it as an internal function for a few years now.  I was
> surprised geomorph was able to call it.
>
> Particularly surprising to me was the fact that it is not properly
> documented.  One of the help topics lists it as an alias, but it
> contains no usage info, and is not mentioned in the .Rd file other than
> the alias.  And yet "R CMD check rgl" has never complained about it.
>
> Is this intentional?

Does the Rd file that documents it have \keyword{internal}? These are
not checked fully (as I realized recently while working on the help
system), and I guess that's intentional.

Best,
-Deepayan

>
> Duncan Murdoch
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel



[Rd] Not documenting a function and not getting a check error?
Deepayan Sarkar