From edd at debian.org  Thu Oct 29 03:05:20 2015
From: edd at debian.org (Dirk Eddelbuettel)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:05:20 -0500
Subject: [Rd] R CMD BATCH vs R CMD batch
In-Reply-To: <CAM3-Kjagdzcya2ecCm=1Q7roFnNsKH+RR0Ryg3JEWPGU1b=4VA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM3-Kjagdzcya2ecCm=1Q7roFnNsKH+RR0Ryg3JEWPGU1b=4VA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <22065.32480.203040.942634@max.nulle.part>


On 28 October 2015 at 21:39, Marius Hofert wrote:
| Out of laziness I just used "R CMD batch" instead of "R CMD BATCH". I
| didn't get an error so didn't think about the consequences... One
| consequence is (at least on Mac OS X 10.11 but probably in more
| generality) that R_BATCH_OPTIONS are ignored, which was kind of fatal
| in my case... I am thus wondering whether it makes sense to either a)
| have R_BATCH_OPTIONS also be respected for "R CMD batch" or b) simply
| not allow "R CMD batch" as a valid command (so requiring to use "R CMD
| BATCH"). Both approaches might be delicate... just wanted to point
| this issue out...

Same reason we have 'R CMD INSTALL' as there often is /usr/bin/install with
different options ...

In general 'R CMD foo' will run for any 'foo' in the path:

   edd at max:~$ R CMD date
   Wed Oct 28 21:05:01 CDT 2015
   edd at max:~$ 

Dirk

-- 
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org



[Rd] R CMD BATCH vs R CMD batch
Dirk Eddelbuettel