"`R notes' should be better"
Martin Maechler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Fri, 13 Mar 1998 09:41:30 +0100
>>>>> "KH" == Kurt Hornik <Kurt.Hornik@ci.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
>>>>> Martin Maechler writes:
>> [CC'ed to R-devel, not R-help]
>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Simpson <email@example.com> writes:
Bill> Thanks very much Douglas for the pointer to nlm. Maybe the
Bill> "Notes on R" maintainer can add at least a mention of nlm in the
Bill> section on nonlinear fitting?
Bill> (This example could replace the current nonlinear fitting section
Bill> in "Notes on R")
>> You are talking of <CRAN>/doc/Rnotes.ps, or Rnotes.tgz respectively,
>> The first page states both R & R as authors (beside Venables &
>> D.Smith). However, I doubt if they consider themselves as
>> 'maintainers' of these notes (due to lack of time), or do you?
>> Ross? Robert?
>> The problem is that these notes need more work than just ('nls' <->
>> Maybe I should ask again for volunteers, or maybe even a discussion
>> on what could / should be done.
>> The notes have several sections (organized in different *.tex files)
>> in Rnotes.tgz. Could(/should) we have different authors
>> (ie. volunteers from among you) for these sections?
>> About a year ago or so, Kurt Hornik proposed that these notes should
>> become chapter 1 -- n of ``the book'' where the current things in
>> RHOME/doc/manual/Man.tex are just the appendices (they already *are*
>> appendices, currently). R & R instead, originally thought (and have
>> also started ??) of completely rewriting from scratch these chapters
>> (1 -- n).
>> Which should be done (and by whom) ?
>> In the case of "R notes upgrading, it'd make sense if someone first
>> works thru the current notes and makes them (somewhat)
>> ``compatible'' with the Rd.sty that we currently use for the
>> help-manual (i.e. the doc/manual/... things).
KH> We DEFINITELY need to do something about R notes very soon. The
KH> 0.61 tree should be frozen by this weekend, 0.62 needs the bug
KH> fixes that we know of, the re-implementation of factors (asap,
KH> please!) and docs for the new graphics things (dev.xxx), but that's
KH> about it, I would say (we can have the `real' make install things
there are a few more graphic things.. [ par(par()) should work.. ]
KH> Working on Rnotes should at least come right after that.
KH> I am no longer sure about LaTeX and my suggestion from about a year
KH> ago, though. I would more be in favor of having a Texinfo version
Really? I have to admit (my first reaction) that I wouldn't want to drop
all the LaTeX niceties [starting with "math", "real" tables (tabular), ...]
KH> as I could also use this on-line via info, but perhaps everyone
KH> else thinks that I should use now-free Netscape for doing that (my
KH> experience is that the conversion Texinfo -> HTML is trivial
KH> whereas I am never sure about latex2html or hyperlatex).
For me, latex2html has been quite satisfactory, as long as I am willing to
spend some time hand editing the result
(after the hand e
My feeling is that latex2html is really being improved and extended,
(being very configurable) constantly which is not/[much less] true for texinfo.
Also, AUC-tex (with font-latex) as the emacs interface to latex is such a
beauty compared to texinfo mode...
And then there's PDFtex which produces foo.pdf instead of foo.dvi
where everything (ref/label, cite, index, tableofcontents, ...)
is linked with everything [but pdftex is alpha/beta,...].
Maybe, the main point should be:
>>>>>> How are these notes used? <<<<
If ``most of the time: on paper'', I think I'd prefer latex to texinfo
If ``substantially: via Web browser'', maybe texinfo is better.
KH> In any case, I perhaps could try to go through Rnotes sometimes
KH> this weekend to find out what most urgently needs fixing.
ok, thank you in advance.
Ross / Robert: PLEASE we need some statement from you about this!
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: firstname.lastname@example.org