From Kurt.Hornik@ci.tuwien.ac.at  Thu Aug 16 08:54:26 2001
From: Kurt.Hornik@ci.tuwien.ac.at (Kurt Hornik)
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:54:26 +0200
Subject: [Rd] documented but missing from the code (PR#1054)
In-Reply-To: <3B7ADEE3.146C63F9@bank-banque-canada.ca>
References: <200108151730.TAA10351@pubhealth.ku.dk>
 <3B7ADEE3.146C63F9@bank-banque-canada.ca>
Message-ID: <15227.31794.780031.428261@mithrandir.hornik.net>

>>>>> Paul Gilbert writes:

BDR> Until very recently this was true for objects in zzz.R. One example in dse
BDR> is scale.default, which is not in the code and is in the documentation
BDR> (incorrectly). Generated objects are (correctly) marked as not in the code.

> I take this to mean that if I do

>   if(!exists(zzz)) zzz <- whatever

> then any documentation for zzz will generate the warning.

Correct.  Codoc could be refined to catch this: is currently only looks
at the top-level assignments.  But in the above case, one can argue that
defensiveness should give a warning: the package writer could provide a
totally different zzz and document it, and consistency of code and docs
would be conditional on non-existence of zzz ...

-k
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
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] documented but missing from the code (PR#1054)
Kurt Hornik