From murdoch.duncan at gmail.com  Sat Apr 26 14:35:08 2014
From: murdoch.duncan at gmail.com (Duncan Murdoch)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 08:35:08 -0400
Subject: [Rd] The regular expressions in compareVersion()
In-Reply-To: <B4D7D0B5-D1C8-4244-BF0E-E40B132DB4D7@gmail.com>
References: <CANROs4dE+EM92_EoD9E1aeS-1B1wmYiV2vyWsSOwx3Xn6ydV1A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5359771E.8040507@gmail.com>
	<CAFDcVCR2JN9EoXwMFpE9RbXYiRN=UyJH_-RgFAKO6_a78uf1CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<53599C22.8040202@gmail.com>
	<CANROs4eZQHOkiocU-31KHVtEbmdzJ9S78N7dKF4n+wTd5ir7=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CB6F5EE2-E221-4A34-8802-50EF8BFD35E0@r-project.org>
	<535A4F52.4020300@gmail.com>
	<177237DA-1B70-4340-AB22-C550F2495851@gmail.com>
	<B4D7D0B5-D1C8-4244-BF0E-E40B132DB4D7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <535BA7FC.1060004@gmail.com>

On 26/04/2014, 3:36 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
>
> On 25 Apr 2014, at 14:50 , peter dalgaard <pdalgd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Thanks.  I've put in a bug report on this one now, so it shouldn't get missed again.  If nobody else gets to it first I'll deal with it.
>>>
>>> I don't see any value in fixing the compareVersion example, but if someone submits a bug report about it, someone else might fix it.
>>
>> No point in clinging to obviously incorrect code either. Fixed in R-devel.
>>
>> Peter
>
> Notice that I haven't touched Sweave, just compareVersion. The RE's may well be incorrect for Sweave, but the obvious fix was tried in r64087 and broke "make" when building vignettes,
hence the reversion in r64100.  (See R-devel mails from Oct 23, 2013 if 
you care.)


The issue in this case was that the Sweave.Rnw vignette gave a verbatim 
illustration of \Sexpr{}, relying on the bug to prevent it from being 
expanded.  After a bit more testing, I'll re-commit the fixes.

Duncan Murdoch



[Rd] The regular expressions in compareVersion()
Duncan Murdoch