From h.wickham at gmail.com  Wed Aug 28 23:13:57 2013
From: h.wickham at gmail.com (Hadley Wickham)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:13:57 -0500
Subject: [Rd] =?windows-1252?q?=91=3A=3A=3A=92_call?=
In-Reply-To: <521E5AD0.7070409@gmail.com>
References: <521E221E.3020107@gmail.com>
	<E340A230-94C4-4ED3-BD42-0C72F8CAC340@me.com>
	<521E4666.8080603@gmail.com>
	<CANROs4dNke+TBd2OVrY9q_cvLCVh9JkWsy+XaT66s_Ns3gcRpw@mail.gmail.com>
	<521E5AD0.7070409@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABdHhvEiR-nWOBA36gTgpexqy3ASzHw9QtXKqqd+KB6gX=pMuw@mail.gmail.com>

>  3/ Some functions are exported normally but hidden by using "." in the
> beginning of their names. Other package maintainers would know they exist,
> but end users would not so easily find them. (Duncan's other suggestion of
> using \keyword{internal} in the .Rd file strikes me as problematic. I'm
> surprised CRAN checks do not already object to functions exported and
> documented with \keyword{internal}.)

Why? I think this is exactly the use case of \keyword{internal}.

-- 
Chief Scientist, RStudio
http://had.co.nz/



[Rd] =?windows-1252?q?=91=3A=3A=3A=92_call?=
Hadley Wickham