From sfalcon at fhcrc.org  Tue Aug 29 19:53:28 2006
From: sfalcon at fhcrc.org (Seth Falcon)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:53:28 -0700
Subject: [Rd] 'CanMakeUseOf' field
In-Reply-To: <44F47295.2050207@stats.uwo.ca> (Duncan Murdoch's message of "Tue,
	29 Aug 2006 13:00:05 -0400")
References: <m2wt8sgyo0.fsf@ziti.fhcrc.org>
	<17651.65163.240840.365787@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<44F4473D.9030203@bank-banque-canada.ca>
	<17652.19292.998960.686119@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<44F46112.7060809@stats.uwo.ca> <m2d5ajedon.fsf@ziti.fhcrc.org>
	<44F47295.2050207@stats.uwo.ca>
Message-ID: <m28xl7ctt3.fsf@ziti.fhcrc.org>

Duncan Murdoch <murdoch at stats.uwo.ca> writes:
> On 8/29/2006 11:58 AM, Seth Falcon wrote:
>> I think there is an important distinction between a dependency needed
>> for the package to function and a dependency needed to demonstrate
>> said functionality via an example or vignette.  The former is what
>> Depends is about, the latter is something else (Suggests).
>
> Yes, that's a good point, especially with vignettes.  Only the package
> author needs to be able to run them.

Yes, but just to keep things clear: the value of vignettes is that
users can follow along.  So the ability to programatically identify
the extra required packages is valuable.

> But maybe examples should be considered broken if they don't
> work. Users should be able to expect example(foo) not to generate an
> error.  Package authors should wrap optional examples in code like if
> (require(...)).

I agree.  As with vignettes, there is value in users being able to
follow along and it would be nice to have a programatic way to
identify extra package needed for fancy/involved/optional examples.

Best,

+ seth




[Rd] 'CanMakeUseOf' field
Seth Falcon