From Martin Maechler <maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch>  Fri Aug 22 13:16:51 1997
From: Martin Maechler <maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch> (Martin Maechler)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:16:51 +0200
Subject: R-alpha: Re: Extensions .R and .Rd (in base/funs/ and base/man/ )
In-Reply-To: <199708181405.QAA00632@sophie.ethz.ch> (message from Martin
 Maechler on Mon, 18 Aug 1997 16:05:18 +0200)
Message-ID: <199708221216.OAA26424@sophie.ethz.ch>

This is propagated to  R-devel in case anyone else has a comment on this :

>>>>> "MM" == Martin Maechler <maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch> writes:

  MM> On Aug. 14,
  MM> "Ross" == Ross Ihaka <ihaka@stat.auckland.ac.nz> writes:

  Ross> Re the emacs stuff:

  MM> ...

  Ross> 2. Peter Dalgaard made the suggestion that we made R source names
  Ross> end in ".R" in the source tree.  This seems like a good idea.  We
  Ross> might also consider making manual files end in .man so that it
  Ross> obvious what they are.

  MM> Kurt and me also would like to agree on a file extension for  
  MM> 'R man' files.

  MM> Either	.man  [PROBLEM: this extension is used in Unix
  MM> 			already for [t/n]roff style manual pages.
  MM> 			Emacs therefore switches to nroff mode for this
  MM> 			extension. That's why I wouldn't like it all.]

  MM> or	.Rd   [in S there are '.d' help files with roff-like syntax]
  MM> or	.Rman

Current status (between Kurt & me):
	
Kurt proposes
	.Rd
	.Rdoc
	.Rman     (in DEcreasing order of preference)

My own order of preference would be

	.Rman .Rd .Rdoc

which would result in '.Rd' as a fair compromise.
		       ===

Any other opinions / votes ?

-- MM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


R-alpha: Re: Extensions .R and .Rd (in base/funs/ and base/man/ )
Martin Maechler