From murdoch.duncan at gmail.com  Thu Jun  5 03:40:36 2014
From: murdoch.duncan at gmail.com (Duncan Murdoch)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:40:36 +0900
Subject: [Rd] R CMD check for the R code from vignettes
In-Reply-To: <CANROs4dWXzYuig3npku5+YOSkchTpZJUn0e2=1pygMa3JOZLoA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANROs4dyoXEUEzouGTsL9sHCMM8RcjYWw9584SUAEYfGntPrFg@mail.gmail.com>	<CADwqtCN2XixFy0H43BeFMU7R_p+sQCaOHBU5W6tXn7Ng7pP1pA@mail.gmail.com>	<CANROs4c=x7BNDWJ7ObS5pB36+NBGzVmTmN7-94t8T+dowcEA5A@mail.gmail.com>	<538A63C6.5030201@fhcrc.org>	<CANROs4cM=q0isYqUO6eg2vWjT2HieUy996u7HtS8_deydFa-8g@mail.gmail.com>	<CADwqtCNQEAz==L4fSomQt+Ayw6wSo61-uM=xN_9K26K1XRoFwQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CANROs4cuHbSTeNXgBuWFAhpHGMVdGLsAs5gFH+8s=HCq8NYiwQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAN_1p9wgx57ZRAYz56m+-51_UMYTtm97-JmpYSKYtHSobLkOzQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CADwqtCP=PJR=hDx9KSjs4HeSaqdgpdLZR-EpS0a5A2DPcW_7=Q@mail.gmail.com>	<538C960B.2040509@gmail.com>	<CANROs4fyMwi9=+h=78sXxcp4L8oH=WFSP_fighbzT8h_qa0b8Q@mail.gmail.com>	<538CB807.7050100@gmail.com>	<CAAHES9wXcvfzrCTAtz0XrOVeYzijno32WZ8seOh4LO+0ZzZd_A@mail.gmail.com>	<538CF3B7.2060007@gmail.com>	<CAAHES9x3EnvZ=mLWd624jUYxV_uEbd1QiZmoL-OhXrC4TGAnqA@mail.gmail.com>	<538D3082.9050209@gmail.com>
	<CANROs4dWXzYuig3npku5+YOSkchTpZJUn0e2=1pygMa3JOZLoA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <538FCA94.9010105@gmail.com>

On 03/06/2014, 2:04 PM, Yihui Xie wrote:
> As I pointed out, \Sexpr{} is not the only potential problem. Besides,
> side effects are not necessarily evil in all cases.
>
> Since I have been described as "nitpicky", it is time for me to quit
> the discussion now

In that case I'll also consider the issue closed.

Duncan Murdoch


(adjectives on personal pronouns instead of nouns
> in a discussion is a sign for me to quit in my eyes). I'm fine with
> optional tangling, and I believe one should not expect to reproduce
> results generated by weave using a different approach, namely
> tangle+source. Some people believe tangling should mandatory, and
> tangle must completely match weave in terms of code evaluation. I'm
> fine with that, too. I'll be happy to see improvement in tangle
> functions, as well as education on good/bad side effects. I have no
> intention to win the Nobel Peace Prize, so I'm not going to make
> everyone agree with each other. You hold your opinions, and I hold
> mine. Once again, thanks everyone for your perspectives!
>
> Regards,
> Yihui
> --
> Yihui Xie <xieyihui at gmail.com>
> Web: http://yihui.name
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Kevin Coombes <kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Doc, it hurts when I do this."
>> "So, don't do that."
>>
>> If no one in R Core does anything about this issue (in terms of changing
>> Sweave or Stangle), then the solution still remains very simple.  Authors of
>> vignettes should avoid using anything in \Sexpr{} that has a side effect. As
>> long as they do that, the code will tangle correctly and produce the same
>> result as Sweave.
>>
>> R CMD check already detects other things which may or may not be outright
>> errors but are viewed as bad practice. I think it is bad practice to put
>> code with side effects into an Sexpr. So, I don't do that. If I did do that
>> accidentally, I really wouldn't mind if R CMD check warned me abut it.
>>
>>    -- Kevin
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>



[Rd] R CMD check for the R code from vignettes
Duncan Murdoch