From marius.hofert at uwaterloo.ca  Thu Oct 29 03:07:44 2015
From: marius.hofert at uwaterloo.ca (Marius Hofert)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:07:44 -0400
Subject: [Rd] R CMD BATCH vs R CMD batch
In-Reply-To: <d7af79d8f6bf45c69ce4f1eba03582d5@CONNHUB3.connect.uwaterloo.ca>
References: <CAM3-Kjagdzcya2ecCm=1Q7roFnNsKH+RR0Ryg3JEWPGU1b=4VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<d7af79d8f6bf45c69ce4f1eba03582d5@CONNHUB3.connect.uwaterloo.ca>
Message-ID: <CAM3-KjbK1Mxj1q9a9zh1+QX9pJYa-o1XHb9AiRqDTi_4KXXFRw@mail.gmail.com>

Great, thanks, Dirk. Nice example :-)


On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> wrote:
>
> 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
Marius Hofert