From kleiweg@let.rug.nl  Thu Dec 20 00:16:49 2001
From: kleiweg@let.rug.nl (Peter Kleiweg)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:16:49 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [Rd] dots and ldots in R 1.4.0
In-Reply-To: <x2y9jyg39h.fsf@blueberry.kubism.ku.dk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0112200113580.429-100000@kleigh.nl>

Peter Dalgaard BSA scribeva...

> Peter Kleiweg <kleiweg@let.rug.nl> writes:
>
> > I have a package with in the documentation:
> >  in \usage :    \dots
> >  in \arguments: \ldots
> >
> > This is how I interpreted "Use \dots for the dots in function
> > argument lists ..., and \ldots for ellipsis dots in ordinary
> > text"  in "Writing R Extensions".
> >
> > When I did `R CMD check' in R version 1.3.1 all was fine.
> > With R version 1.4.0 I get :
> >   * checking for undocumented arguments in \usage ... WARNING
> >   Undocumented arguments in documentation object `FOO':
> >   [1] "..."
> >
> > Am I doing something wrong?
>
> Not really, the checks got stricter. You just need to supply a
> line describing what the "..." arguments are for.

That is what I did, in \arguments, using \item{\ldots}{}.

-- 
Peter Kleiweg
http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg/

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


[Rd] dots and ldots in R 1.4.0
Peter Kleiweg