From roebuck at odin.mdacc.tmc.edu  Mon Aug 15 17:10:04 2005
From: roebuck at odin.mdacc.tmc.edu (Paul Roebuck)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:10:04 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Rd] Patches (was Re:  documentation for eval() typo)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508142215240.13790@gannet.stats>
References: <Pine.OSF.4.58.0508141316210.414054@odin.mdacc.tmc.edu>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.0508142215240.13790@gannet.stats>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.58.0508150944260.460227@odin.mdacc.tmc.edu>

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Paul Roebuck wrote:
>
> >> It is equivalent to 'evalq' except the its default
>
> It would be easier to deal with thes reports if in future you
> could provide a patch against the source file (here eval.Rd).

I normally download a copy of the current binary and the
matching source distribution for performing searches, so
would not be tracking r-devel or r-patched updates.

Would the following have been palatable as annotated?


R-2.1.1/src/library/base/man/eval.Rd:
59c59
<   equivalent to \code{evalq} except that its default argument creates a
---
>   equivalent to \code{evalq} except the its default argument creates a

----------------------------------------------------------
SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped)



[Rd] Patches (was Re: documentation for eval() typo)
Paul Roebuck