[Rd] HTML vignette browser

Friedrich Leisch friedrich.leisch at stat.uni-muenchen.de
Tue Jun 5 09:36:55 CEST 2007

>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:52:51 -0700,
>>>>> Robert Gentleman (RG) wrote:

  > Deepayan Sarkar wrote:
  >> On 6/4/07, Seth Falcon <sfalcon at fhcrc.org> wrote:
  >>> Friedrich Leisch <friedrich.leisch at stat.uni-muenchen.de> writes:
  >>>> Looks good to me, and certainly something worth being added to R.
  >>>> 2 quick (related) comments:
  >>>> 1) I am not sure if we want to include links to the Latex-Sources by
  >>>> default, those might confuse unsuspecting novices a lot. Perhaps
  >>>> make those optional using an argument to browseVignettes(), which
  >>>> is FALSE by default?
  >>> I agree that the Rnw could confuse folks.  But I'm not sure it needs
  >>> to be hidden or turned off by default...  If the .R file was also
  >>> included then it would be less confusing I suspect as the curious
  >>> could deduce what Rnw is about by triangulation.
  >>>> 2) Instead links to .Rnw files we may want to include links to the R
  >>>> code -> should we R CMD INSTALL a tangled version of each vignette
  >>>> such that we can link to it? Of course it is redundant information
  >>>> given the .Rnw, but we also have the help pages in several formats
  >>>> ready.
  >>> Including, by default, links to the tangled .R code seems like a
  >>> really nice idea.  I think a lot of users who find vignettes don't
  >>> realize that all of the code used to generate the entire document is
  >>> available to them -- I just had a question from someone who wanted to
  >>> know how to make a plot that appeared in a vignette, for example.
  >> I agree that having a Stangled .R file would be a great idea (among
  >> other things, it would have the complete code, which many PDFs will
  >> not).
  >> I don't have a strong opinion either way about linking to the .Rnw
  >> file. It should definitely be there if the PDF file is absent (e.g.
  >> for grid, and other packages installed with --no-vignettes, which I
  >> always do for local installation). Maybe we can keep them, but change
  >> the name to something more scary than "source", e.g. "LaTeX/Noweb
  >> source".

  >    I would very much prefer to keep the source, with some name, scary or 
  > not...

I have no strong opinion eitehr way, just "source" may have a lot of
people belive that is R code -> whatever "scary" name is chosen sounds
good to me.

I'll have a shot at installing the tangled code later this week (there
is a holiday coming up on Thursday).


More information about the R-devel mailing list